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.

 

Unity of the chemtrail theory

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
If a chemtrailer was to answer these questions without looking at any other answers, then go back and read other responses, he would understand exactly why most people don't take this stuff seriously. Please, if you aren't going to answer these questions, go somewhere else.



What is in chemtrails, really?

When did they start?

What is their purpose?

Are they dangerous?

How do you tell a chemtrail from a persistent contrail?

Who is behind this all?

Is it just military planes, or commercial as well?

How is this stuff delivered? (are there secret spray nozels or is it in the fuel?)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I was on a flight last night from Wash Dulles to Toronto Pearson.

As I looked out the window to the west the sun was setting and I noticed a chemtrail which had only been made moments before. The chemtrail was about 20 feet in width and was close enough that it was only a few yards from where I was sitting. The leading edge of whatever caused it was only a few miles west of use by the time I noticed it. The leading edge appeared to be an object much smaller than a commercial plane - almost like a rocket but it was too faint for much detail. We were at about 15,000 ft and this thing had come within yards above us only a few seconds / moments before and in close airspace. One characteristic I noticed was that the chemtrail vapor (whatever it was) appeared as a spiral. Very strange.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


You want people to answer your questions without providing where they got their answers? From what I learned in high school and college, concrete answers require citations.
If I were able to provide sources, would you accept certain sources over others?
Do you consider some people's opinions more reliable than others?

I'm guessing you want information from government and scientific sources.
From what I've been able to ascertain, the answers you want are still considered classified information.

I encourage you to search for your own answers and decide for yourself whether you believe heavy metals and biological materials are in chemical trails.
I also encourage you to search for your own answers why some trails persist while others do not.

As long as the government, military, and esteemed scientific community are not providing documentation, we are forced to come to our own conclusions.

Have fun with your thread.

(By the way, asking to be spoon fed is considered unbecoming in the both the educational and scientific communities.)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


All the research you are asking for can be found in the threads here at ATS over the years. I think you should decide for yourself whether or not there is enough evidence to back the existence of chemtrails.

edit on 1-2-2012 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
"Nothing to see here, folks"; as others are about to tell you. "It's all "normal". This topic is like trying to talk about the "M" word, on ATS. You're beating a dead horse.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Yup. They're afraid.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nuttin4U
 


I get a certain morbid delight from the occasional death thrall from these guys when chemtrail researches don't take the diversion bait.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 



The chemtrail was about 20 feet in width and was close enough that it was only a few yards from where I was sitting.


I would say your ability to judge size and distance is in error. IF a contrail was, in fact, "only a few yards" away,
and you were flying in a jet moving at upwards of 400 MPH.....do you have any idea how fast the relative speed of the object suspended in mid-air, outside your window, would be?

The rest of what you relate is also not logical, nor descriptive of reality:


The leading edge of whatever caused it was only a few miles west of use by the time I noticed it.


First you suggested it (the contrail) was "20 feet in width"...but now, you are claiming you could see it for "a few miles" away?? Does that make sense, to you?



We were at about 15,000 ft


How did you determine this altitude? Was it shown on the in-flight progress screens that some airlines display? Or, is this just a "guess"? If you were at 15,000 feet on an airline flight from Dulles to Toronto, then that would have been briefly, during the climb-out on departure, or during the descent for arrival. Which was it?

(Oh, and contrails DO NOT form at 15,000 feet. So, there, is already a mistaken estimation of altitude, anyway).


Now, your flight was "last night" That would be 31 January, 2012. Let's find your flight, shall we?:

Here is a sample of scheduled flights: KIAD - CYYZ

I see that they all are smaller Regional Jets operated on that route, by various airlines. Was your flight on GoJet, or Atlantic Southeast airlines?

It must have been Atlantic Southeast, since GoJet did not operate on the 31st January, on those city pairs. You said you looked West, to the setting Sun....so was this your flight, by any chance?


ASQ6061, and it was on time. Left at 1709 EST. ASQ6061's final cruising altitude was 27,000 feet. Historically on other dates for same flights, typical cruise altitudes of 27,000 or 29,000 are seen. This is also to be expected for a commercial jet airliner, on that typical route.

So, 15,000 feet would have during the climb, or descent only, for that flight.


Now, reason for all of that detail is to comply with this thread author's intent. Even if it doesn't seem so, at first.

It is simply to illustrate how far, far too often those who make claims of "chemtrails", even when based on first-hand accounts, can be shown to be largely mistaken, as most laypersons are, when judging heights above the ground, relative sizes and mistaking the appearance of normal contrails for something "not normal"....when in fact, they are perfectly regular, and understood, by those of us with the knowledge and experience toroorperly interpret what we observe.




edit on Wed 1 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Again. Telling folks what they are seeing. Passing judgment on someones skills of observation. Blinders anyone?

Are you paid or just obsessed?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Again. Telling folks what they are seeing. Passing judgment on someones skills of observation. Blinders anyone?

Are you paid or just obsessed?


I think he/she's a bot. Everytime someone mentions 'chemtrail'....out he/she comes; OR, It's GOT TO BE their J.O.B. What other reason is there? I love the way he/she picks apart a person's comment. You're becoming predictable, ProudBird. GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!!!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


I am telling "folks" that they are misunderstanding what they thought they observed. It is really quite simple....had I been there, at the time, it would have been a simple matter so set a person straight. It is all about experience in observation, and many simply lack that experience (for whatever reason) and are fooled by simple optical illusions.

Point being, this sort of mistaken observational accounts leads to the continued confusion and misrepresentation that carries the "chemtrail" myth forward.

It ties in with the intent of this thread OP, too. When the "personal" accounts and descriptions and "theories" are all different, then this speaks volumes about the credibility of the "theories" in the first place.

Is it useful to let such misconceptions stand, and pollute the search for facts and truth? Or, is it better to let people remain ignorant....contrary to the stated goal of ATS?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Are you serious? lol

I will stay right where I am.

Your logic = Fail

This thread is full of Troll



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Not only are they afraid, they are desperately trying to derail the thread before it even begins.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by nuttin4U
 


That's really all that is left for them to do...discredit the observations in order to cease any serious inquiry.

They never address the actual government, and institutional studies. ATS is full of research showing that the motive, the mechanisms and the intent are there.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   



Chemtrail Scientist Breaks Silence
Ohio is the home of Wright-Patterson — the air force base working with electromagnetic and weather modification technology. A scientist working at Wright-Patterson recently told reporter Bob Fitrakis that two different projects are being conducted.

One involves cloud creation experiments to lessen the effect of global warming. Other chemtrails are connected with the military’s extremely high-power Radio Frequency beam weapon in Alaska called HAARP.

The scientist claims that the two most common substances being sprayed into chemtrails are aluminum oxide and barium stearate. When you see planes flying back and forth marking parallel lines, X-patterns and grids in a clear sky, that’s aluminum oxide, according to the scientist.

The goal is to create an artificial sunscreen to reflect solar radiation back into space to alleviate global warming. In some cases, barium may be sprayed in a similar manner for the purpose of high-tech 3-D radar imaging.


What is in chemtrails, really?
Aluminum and Barium

When did they start?
Not sure but at least a decade ago if not more

What is their purpose?
Solar shield from the suns solar flare that send radiation in the direction of Earth
HAARP

Are they dangerous?
What goes up come down on the people living on the surface, so yes it can be dangerous

How do you tell a chemtrail from a persistent contrail?
It doesn't fade away as fast as a contrail and it spreads out and grows to be very large making the sky a bright white.

Who is behind this all?
The US government by means of US military

Is it just military planes, or commercial as well?
Un-marked planes most likely military

How is this stuff delivered? (are there secret spray nozels or is it in the fuel?)
Spary nozels attached to the wing

edit on 1-2-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


False.


They never address the actual government, and institutional studies.


These are addressed continually, in the many, many so-called "chemtrail" threads.



ATS is full of research showing that the motive, the mechanisms and the intent are there.


And, quite a bit of that "research" is investigated and vetted, and often shown to be invalid. But to the OP, here, why not use that "vast" amount of "research" that ATS is "full of", and assemble it here, in order to address the OP properly. ALL in one place, per the OP request.

Surely this will be the huge break-through event, and the once and all final "proof" for "chemtrails", right?

edit on Wed 1 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 





, and assemble it here, in order to address the OP properly. ALL in one place, per the OP request.


And that is exactly why this thread is a TROLL thread.

....We all know the OP's opinion on Chemtrails .... nothings going to change that

How about go READ all the other threads instead of us spoon feeding you.
edit on 1-2-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)





Great attempt


...more Troll words

edit on 1-2-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


I star you for your courage in actually addressing the OP. Now let's see what answers others give.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Great attempt at answering the OP, there.

However, the credibility of the video clip, from the film "What In The World Are They Spraying?" (or, "WITWATS"), has been shown to be lacking.....severely lacking, and in fact, the film is full of out-right lies.

Your external source quote, about a "scientist" at Wright-Patterson in Ohio? What was the source of that claim? It must be provided, to ascertain its accuracy.

Then, the many direct answers to the OP.....I will focus on just one: The claim that there are nozzles on the wings.

Care to provide proof of that assertion? Making a claim is one thing....backing it up with facts and evidence is another entirely.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 



....We all know the OP's opinion on Chemtrails .... nothings going to change that

How about go READ all the other threads instead of us spoon feeding you.


You are missing the point entirely. The OP knows exactly what answers to expect. They will contradict each other. The point is to get you to understand why that undermines the chemtrail conspiracy's credibility.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join