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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

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


Here is one of the earlier proposals for doing exactly what many of us have suspected and known of for a while now.





Introduction . In recent years, consideration of the possible warming of the climate due to the
injection into the atmosphere of ''greenhouse gases,'' particularly carbon dioxide, CO2,
1
has
motivated proposals to impose international limitations of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly
ones yielding less heating-value per gram of CO2 released, such as coal. The starting point of the
present paper is the widely-appreciated fact2
that increases in average world-wide temperature of
the magnitude currently predicted can be canceled
3
by preventing about 1% of incoming solar
radiation – insolation – from reaching the Earth.
4,5
This could be done by scattering into space
from the vicinity of the Earth an appropriately small fraction of total insolation. If performed nearoptimally,
6
we believe that the total cost of such an enhanced scattering operation would probably
be at most $1 billion per year, an expenditure that is two orders of magnitude smaller in economi


www.chemtrails911.com...

Here is another, graciously provided by Phage. www.geoengineeringwatch.org...




Positioning of scatterers of incoming solar radiation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere – specifically, the
middle to upper stratosphere – is a now-venerable approach that appears to provide the most practical
deployment, as operational lifetimes of such engineered scatterers can be as long as a half-decade;
required replacement rates are correspondingly modest. Thus, the stratosphere is where we propose to
deploy all of the insolation-modulation scattering systems that we propose for near-term study


Mod Note: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS - Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/2/12 by argentus because: changed quote tags to ex tags to reflect off-site content




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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.



Do you have a credible source to show that the source I provided which in your words is "lacking credibility"?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Deepest apologies for the off-topic nature of my inquiry, but were you not recently banned under the ATS username "mileslong54"?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
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.



So you say that the sources I provided are "lacking credibility" do you have a source that proves it is lacking credibility or are those just your thoughts?

Well here some more evidence....


As continuing chemtrail activity culminated in massive aerial spraying over Vancouver Island and Washington state March 20, 2002, and broadening plumes once again fanned out to haze clear blue skies – Air Traffic Controllers at major airports across the United States expressed concern over the emissions constantly showing up on their radar screens.

These radar returns are the signature of the fine aluminum particles found in laboratory tests of chemtrail-contaminated rain taken in Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999. The lab analysis found reflective quartz particles in the chemtrail fallout — and levels of aluminum FIVE TIMES higher than Ontario’s maximum permissible health safety standards.
In a fourth interview with reporter S.T. Brendt last week, Deep Sky stated that Air Traffic Controllers at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, all three major airports in New York, Los Angeles LAX, San Francisco, Atlanta, Cleveland, San Diego, Washington DC’s Dulles and Jacksonville, Florida, were being ordered to route airliners beneath formations of Air Force tanker planes spraying something that regularly clouds their screens.

Every controller, without exception, is being told to divert traffic due to military exercises , and to bring in traffic lower because of experiments that may degrade their radars. The controllers at Cleveland’s airport were surprised by the extent of obscuration on their radars.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Oh, and that video clip....portions from the WITWATS film? And some compiled other claims, many just plain wrong.

But, let's look at its title, and do some rational thinking and number-crunching, OK?

"200 million tons" of so-called "aluminum" sprayed. Writing out that number, it is 200,000,000 tons. A ton is 2,000 pounds. So, that is now 400,000,000,000 pounds. That is 400 Billion (with a 'B') pounds.

OK so far?

Now....what's a typical payload possibility, for an airplane? A passenger jet with, say, 250 people onboard? That is a weight (of payload, the passengers) of about 45,000 pounds. Add in their luggage, say two per person, @35 lbs each bag, and we now have a total of 17,500 (for 500 bags) + 45,000 (for 250 people) = 62,500 pounds. This is a reasonable number for a large jet, loaded with fuel, to be able to carry as "extra" weight. I'll be generous, and bump it up to a round 80,000 pounds, for ease of math.

Divide 400,000,000,000 lbs by 80,000 lbs...and what do we get?

We get 5,000,000. This means there would have to be FIVE Million separate airplane flights, in order to loft the stated "200 million tons of aluminum" into the atmosphere.

Does that seem practical, or even possible, to anyone?

Feel free to check my math.....
edit on Wed 1 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Deepest apologies for the off-topic nature of my inquiry, but were you not recently banned under the ATS username "mileslong54"?


I have no idea what your talking about



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Seriously? Page Ala Cearl? The timing of the banning and your arrival? All the other similarities? Just a great, big, fat coincidence, eh?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

At least attempt to be sneaky about it.
edit on 1-2-2012 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 



Well here some more evidence....


Once again, you posted text from external source, with no citation for it.

Reading the text, I recognize having seen that same claim before.....it has been discredited and shown to have been entirely made-up.

If I remember correctly, it is originally attributed to Will Thomas....he is one of the "grandfathers" of the "chemtrail" hoax and myth.

AM I correct as to the provenance of that claim, of Air Traffic Controllers, and so-called "Deep Sky" nonsense??

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



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 



Well here some more evidence....


Once again, you posted text from external source, with no citation for it.

Reading the text, I recognize having seen that same claim before.....it has been discredited and shown to have been entirely made-up.

If I remember correctly, it is originally attributed to Will Thomas....he is one of the "grandfathers" of the "chemtrail" hoax and myth.

AM I correct as to the provenance of that claim, of Air Traffic Controllers, and so-called "Deep Sky" nonsense??

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


My bad.....www.thetruthsource.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Yes....and YOUR "source" provided has its own link to a "source". THIS one:

aircrap.org...


Ah.....you see, whenever this comes up ("chemtrails") it all comes back to roost, eventually, at the original con-artists who started it. No matter how hard they try to hide their hands in it.

This story, the so-called "whistleblower" called Deep Sky" all of it is bunk. It only fools the gullible and ill-informed. But, in order to keep their gravy-train chugging along, the con-job needs to be pumped up, by the hoaxters.....and hucksters.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


I don't know how this guy got past me. The reporter for the piece you linked seems pretty credible and a damn good digger when it comes to the truth. Bob Fritakis en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Same old, same old. Kill the messenger. Too bad the studies, the motive, the intent and the chemtrails are still there.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


my friend, if I could give you a thousand stars, I would. thank you for actually reading and answering the questions. The point I hope to make is that there is no unified theory on any aspect of chemtrails.

I only hope others are as sharp.

Thankyou again.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


If there is a snitch forum on ATS, maybe you could take your grievance there.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Do you have a link?

If he disagreed with your position on chemtrails, would your panties be in a wad right now?

And frankly, if were up to me he could continue posting ad nauseum. I just think it's hilarious that he made absolutely ZERO attempt at covering it up.
edit on 1-2-2012 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


I see you managed to travel right past those little links I left at the top of this page. I am about to do something I have never done before...and call TROLL.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
We all need to stop replying to this thread.
I just realized whom the Op is waiting for.
He/She specifically asked for a "chemtrailer" to answer his/her questions.

The beginning of the Op states:


If a chemtrailer was to answer these questions


I am not a "chemtrailer" because I have never used a plane to spray anything in the sky.
As explained in this article:
"Chemtrailer Skywrites Over San Diego"
theintelhub.com...

As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever come on ATS and seriously admitted to being a chemtrailer and spraying the skies.

So, I think we all need to back off until a chemtrailer enters the thread and offers to answer the Op's questions with his/her first hand information.

If the Op is wanting answers from contrail conspiracy theorists, I think the Op should be modified to say such. As far as I'm aware, everyone believes contrails exist. The main discrepency is why some persist and others don't. Maybe the Op should clarify that he's looking for answers regarding persisting contrails?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by network dude
 


Yup. They're afraid.


Yes. The Op is trying to determine if he/she should fear persisting contrails or not.
Please hold your conclusive statements until a chemtrailer has a chance to submit his/her info.
Thank you.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Good call.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
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.

Even with the Bible most of you go by, that being the film "What in the world are they spraying" there is a huge variance in the theory. I am interested in not only seeing for myself the ideas out there, but having you and other chemmies see the problem with this theory.


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?

If anyone could provide evidence, real scientific evidence that this is happening, I would be unable to deny it wouldn't' I?



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.

A mid air sample of a suspected chemtrail verified by independent laboratories with no agenda would be the best proof I could think of. And nobody could stop you from gathering that sample. Not even the government.


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.

Trails persist in the sky because of the conditions. If I was to believe in chemtrails, I would believe that you cannot always see them. they don't emit smoke. They would be in liquid form at delivery.


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

But you are guessing and worst of all, you are basing your guesses on having a pre-convinced notion that they do exist. DO YOU NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?


Have fun with your thread.

I would love it if people would read the OP and answer the questions. then maybe we could all learn something.


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


I am asking opinions. Your opinions. Unless you want me to tell you what you think, I kind of need your input here. No spoon feeding necessary.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join