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... Where does the chemicals come from?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
First i would like to say, that i don't believe in chemtrails, and i feel stupid draging myself in to this.
But i have some things i would like chemtrail researchers/ observers to ad to thier research.

When a thread pop up in here, its usually a youtube video with someone saying something like this: I filmed this chemtrail spraying this morning, and now it fill's the whole sky.

I have seen this thread a thousend times, and still wondering...Why are you looking up when non of you can seperate chemtrails from contrails, just by looking at the sky


What i mean is, shouldent you look on the ground, because acording to you, and your youtube videos, this is going on 24/7 all over the world.

And that creates the questions in my head, because that is a lot of chemicals, we are talking tons, and tons, and more tons of this stuff.

Who makes the chemicals used?
Who transport it?
Where do they transport from and to?
What is it transported with?

If those chemicals are used daily the year round there must be some records of who makes it and transport it, because we are looking at massive amounts of chemicals, and that can be hard to hide.

So some fair questions i never see adreased in any chemtrail thread.
If any one is researching this, then come forward and answear, if no one is researching this, you should maybe start on it, cause showing a youtube video, with what i see live everyday(depending on the weather) in the sky above the city i live, does not convince me that they are anything else but contrails.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "chemtrailer" explanations, if I were you.

Funny, but 'chemtrail" proponents seem to lack any actual facts or proof.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Funny, but 'chemtrail" proponents seem to lack any actual facts or proof.

That's because there is no proof. Nor is there any verifiable, repeatable, scientific evidence to suggest as much. All it is is one big HOAX, created in-part to fear-monger people.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

I know...Thats why i ask the questions, as they can't answear, there is a litle provoking hidden in there.
They keep "proofing" with videos of contrails, and i feel stupid everytime i watch one..

edit on 6-1-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Well you get a shiny new flag from me..........

I see no one stepped up to the plate to explain it all........hmmmm I wonder why



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 

I think it was 4th or 5th grade science class
that defined water as a chemical.
So if planes create contrails from water vapor,
then it is a chemtrail because of the chemical water.
But the non believer refuses to admit that water is a chemical and is what we see.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Are you saying that chemtrail theory all along was about water vapour? Really?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

I just want to pass my basic science test and make it to the 6th grade.
Jeopardy could really get interesting with this question.

The Chemical Water

What is the main byproduct of a contrail?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Yep - I think he is.

And not only that, but that such water chemtrials also come from cars and trucks and people breathing, and that they are there whether you can see them or not!

I'm glad he cleared that up for us all!!


Further to the OP - when there SHOULD be evidence if something was happening, and that evidence is not there, it is reasonable to infer that the "something" does not exist - this is called evidence of absence, and for every chemtrail theory around there is a raft of things that should be showing up but aren't like the ones you have listed -

Whistleblowers, aircraft manuals - maintenance, operating, weight and balance, fuel samples (if "it" is in the fuel", air samples (if "it" is supposed to be affecting us all at ground level somehow then it has to be in the air here, right?) and so on and so forth.


Originally posted by Gmoneycricket


What is the main byproduct of a contrail?


A strange question - a contrail is not a process that produces anything, so it has no by products at all - what do you mean



edit on 6-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So there is no byproduct called water in a contrail?
Are you saying it may be more pollution then water from
petroleum products as part of the combustion product which is another whole category of chemicals?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Aloysius the Gaul I had respect for you as you explain for every 1 ton of fuel it creates 1.2 tons of water.
Now you mock me for quoting you?
1.2 tons of water above a humans head could be dangerous
but safer then the 1 ton of fuel it took to create it.
but I am waiting for that thread.

edit on 6-1-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So there is no byproduct called water in a contrail?
Are you saying it may be more pollution then water from
petroleum products as part of the combustion product which is another whole category of chemicals?



That is also confusing - I am saying there is nothing that is a by product OF a contrail because a contrail does not actually produce anything at all - so it has no by products.

A contrail IS the visible water from combustion of hydrocarbons - is that what you mean?


I think you are a little confused as to terminology perhaps - that is my problem here.

The products of combustion are illustrated by this, courtesy of Swiss Air:



As you can see, the major product is CO2, Water 2nd, and various other pollutants distant 3rd from there.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Aloysius the Gaul how many tons of fuel does it take to achieve cruising altitude and then how many tons per
distance at that rate?
How much petroleum product per ton as you fly along mocking us with our little 20 gallon tanks.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Figures are highly specific to a/c type, engines, weight, altitude, climb rate and so forth.

This thead on Airliners.net discusses the rates for a 747 - seems to be about 1 ton for taxi to takeoff, 15 tons for takeoff and climb to cruise, then 13-10 (decreasing over time) tons per hour in cruise



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So there is no byproduct called water in a contrail?
Are you saying it may be more pollution then water from
petroleum products as part of the combustion product which is another whole category of chemicals?



That is also confusing - I am saying there is nothing that is a by product OF a contrail because a contrail does not actually produce anything at all - so it has no by products.

A contrail IS the visible water from combustion of hydrocarbons - is that what you mean?


I think you are a little confused as to terminology perhaps - that is my problem here.

The products of combustion are illustrated by this, courtesy of Swiss Air:



As you can see, the major product is CO2, Water 2nd, and various other pollutants distant 3rd from there.



I was trying to be nice and not point out that per ton of fuel of an airplane or a coal burning electrical generation
plant produces, but if you want to admit that your industry may produce per flight per ton of fuel used compared to coal may be higher go ahead.
If I am wrong I will wait and accept your response.
so per ton of coal to per ton on jet fuel what is the Co2?
edit on 6-1-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So now we just need tons per hour to make electricity?
Maybe electric trains would pollute less and be less chemicals in our sky's?
I could use some help guys lets figure out the tons of pollution and which is less.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I do know a train uses one thimble of diesel, per ton, per foot of distance traveled.
Now I need tons per hour of Co2 from Power plants.
3 forms of travel, 3 different pollution rates
but we all know there is no chemicals in any of them right?


edit on 6-1-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Common sense tells me some country's chose electric trains over planes to move the masses, now is that because of cost, pollution, etc?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Common sense tells me some country's chose electric trains over planes to move the masses, now is that because of cost, pollution, etc?



The answer is only a couple of clicks away.


A railway electrification system supplies electrical energy to railway locomotives and multiple units as well as trams so that they can operate without having an on-board prime mover. There are several different electrification systems in use throughout the world. Railway electrification has many advantages but requires significant capital expenditure for installation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_system

Ps. I could'nt tell if you were being sarcastic or not.........
edit on 6-1-2012 by liejunkie01 because: ps



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


I made no claims about coal - what are you trying to achieve here?

The thread is about where the chemicals come from, and your posts seem pretty much OT to that - perhaps you could start a thread of your own, and clearly articulate your point for all to see?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join