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.

 

Chemtrail plane over NJ 11/14/10

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 





So, How are these guys doing on their Performance Review? Have they be able to convince you, Man Made Cirrus Clouds are Harmless?


I can see where this is going and that would be nowhere. Other than childish remarks do you plan on posting anything relevant to this thread,because so far you haven't? As for their reviews they have done a great job at making you look like,no I won't stoop down to the childish games you seem to want to pull members into.


BTW I don't need someone to convince me of anything I know how to do research on things,do you?


Do you get sick when there are clouds in the sky,because you have a better chance of getting sick from the pollution that is created here on the ground? Better yet can you prove they aren't harmless? Well give it your best shot at proving they aren't harmless, in fact how many people have you ever heard about get sick from contrails? Remember they have been around for decades and I can't recall ever hearing of someone getting sick from contrails have you? I bet you haven't,have you?




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
I work in hollywood productions a lot. When the lighting guys send a beam of light across a dark background. you see all the dust in the air....it's just a highlighted occurance of the dust in the air.
....and this is INDOORS when I see this....with the closed stage doors for hours.
edit on 15-2-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)


I have seen graphs posted from the debunkers that claims soot as part of plane exhaust.
So a common sense approach to it would be, there is something in the aerosol shown in that video that came from a plane even if only 1 part to one billion, or trillion.
But there was some truth in there somewhere,
we just don't know the amount.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


I may need to let you know that I live and work around the world's busiest airport in he world Hartsfield/Jackson International in Atlanta,Ga, so I see many planes that fly over on their way to other destinations which means I see a hell of a lot of air traffic everyday and imagine that I have not gotten sick from any contrail that has been left in the wake of their fly overs. Sorry but that is a fact, and I will guess you haven't ever been sick because of them either have you?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 





So, How are these guys doing on their Performance Review? Have they be able to convince you, Man Made Cirrus Clouds are Harmless?


I can see where this is going and that would be nowhere. Other than childish remarks do you plan on posting anything relevant to this thread,because so far you haven't? As for their reviews they have done a great job at making you look like,no I won't stoop down to the childish games you seem to want to pull members into.


BTW I don't need someone to convince me of anything I know how to do research on things,do you?


Do you get sick when there are clouds in the sky,because you have a better chance of getting sick from the pollution that is created here on the ground? Better yet can you prove they aren't harmless? Well give it your best shot at proving they aren't harmless, in fact how many people have you ever heard about get sick from contrails? Remember they have been around for decades and I can't recall ever hearing of someone getting sick from contrails have you? I bet you haven't,have you?


My point exactly
anytime I talk to you guys you are unable to prove that
Man Made Cirrus Clouds are Harmless,
and your response is prove they are not.

Well that's the easy part.

Cap and Trade, Carbon Emissions are they not trying to make airlines pay a new pollution tax?

www.reuters.com...

Even some Governments are saying
Man Made Cirrus Clouds are not Harmless
edit on 15-2-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: Even some Governments



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


I may need to let you know that I live and work around the world's busiest airport in he world Hartsfield/Jackson International in Atlanta,Ga, so I see many planes that fly over on their way to other destinations which means I see a hell of a lot of air traffic everyday and imagine that I have not gotten sick from any contrail that has been left in the wake of their fly overs. Sorry but that is a fact, and I will guess you haven't ever been sick because of them either have you?


So you are now asking me to give you my medical history on the internet?
So you have gone from being an educator, to the medical field, within in one thread?
Again lets look at where these guys minds are at?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 



Auto Emissions and The Environment In his first term President Bush proposed $1.2 billion in research funding for hydrogen-powered automobiles. He called on Americans for their support, saying "Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." What's wrong with the cars we have now? Today, personal vehicles account for 40% of all U.S. oil consumption and 19% of all U.S. carbon emissions.


www.pbs.org...

Seems like this has been a problem right here on the ground also so what do you think is gonna get you first pollution at 30,000 ft or pollution from the ground based automobiles? I would put my money on the pollution that comes from a lot closer than 30,000 ft.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 



Auto Emissions and The Environment In his first term President Bush proposed $1.2 billion in research funding for hydrogen-powered automobiles. He called on Americans for their support, saying "Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." What's wrong with the cars we have now? Today, personal vehicles account for 40% of all U.S. oil consumption and 19% of all U.S. carbon emissions.


www.pbs.org...

Seems like this has been a problem right here on the ground also so what do you think is gonna get you first pollution at 30,000 ft or pollution from the ground based automobiles? I would put my money on the pollution that comes from a lot closer than 30,000 ft.


I will u2 you my emission license numbers from 3 states if you u2 me yours first.
I want this to be a fair fight.
If you have no emission license, I am willing to wait, tell you pass the test.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I can tell you the states
AZ, Colo, California, with any other info I would be breaking T C of this site.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Anyway before I say good night,
Men in those big flying machines
burn fuel
that we also used to make light
We progressed beyond a
kerosene light
and gave the fuel to man
so he could fly
now that he can fly
and we pay more for light
and breath better
in our homes tonight
he comes back and mocks us
because we gave him our cheap light
the worst part is before light it was whale oil
so if we run out of crude oil in the night
are the men that fly
going to start hunting
whale tonight?
it burns the same
maybe even in flight.

Gmoney
Feb 2012
Thought I should sign and copywrite


edit on 16-2-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: Thought I should sign and copywrite



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I have seen graphs posted from the debunkers that claims soot as part of plane exhaust.
So a common sense approach to it would be, there is something in the aerosol shown in that video that came from a plane even if only 1 part to one billion, or trillion.


Why not actually measure it? Soot is not a secret ingredient - you can measure how much tere is in a volume of air - in fact it is big news - EPA sued over soot


The American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association are suing the federal Environmental Protection Agency to force it to update air-quality standards as required every five years.


And what is hte source of all this soot??


Particulate matter emitted from power plants, factories and diesel trucks is among the most toxic forms of pollution. Advocates for the national parks point out that it also threatens plants and wildlife, and the haze it creates can ruin the views.


In fact if you google "air pollution soot" you find trucks, power plants, diesel locomotives spewing out millions of tons of the stuff......


But there was some truth in there somewhere,
we just don't know the amount.


You might not - but others are better informed, and it's not actually hard to find:


3.3.5. Soot

The primary atmospheric source of soot or black carbon particles is combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning at the Earth's surface, with total emission values near 12 Tg C yr-1 (Liousse et al., 1996). This value exceeds reasonable estimates of the aircraft source of black carbon by several orders of magnitude (Bekki, 1997). For example, aircraft are estimated to have emitted 0.0015 to 0.015 Tg C as soot into the atmosphere in 1992 [with EI(soot) of 0.01 to 0.1 g C/kg fuel] (Friedl, 1997; Rahmes et al., 1998).


-from the IPCC report on aviation and the atmosphere

So there you go - aviation contributes perhaps as much as about 0.1% of the soot in the atmosphere, or perhaps as little as about 0.01%.
edit on 16-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Anyway before I say good night,
Men in those big flying machines
burn fuel
that we also used to make light
We progressed beyond a
kerosene light
and gave the fuel to man
so he could fly
now that he can fly
and we pay more for light
and breath better
in our homes tonight
he comes back and mocks us
because we gave him our cheap light
the worst part is before light it was whale oil
so if we run out of crude oil in the night
are the men that fly
going to start hunting
whale tonight?
it burns the same
maybe even in flight.

Gmoney
Feb 2012
Thought I should sign and copywrite


edit on 16-2-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: Thought I should sign and copywrite


But you see....and I'm sure you understand, that plane flights and their normal emissions ( that we so far all agree upon), are plane engines that emit a certain amount of gas (carbon monoxide, soot, etc....) We also agree that they emit water. Those are truths, correct.
If that temperature and humidity is so, then upon emission of those water "vapor"....the mix at those altitudes may very well could become frozen ice particles.
The thing is....what are frozen ice particles at that altitude also known as ???.....Cirrus clouds....because cirrus clouds are in fact also frozen ice particles.
So they are the same.
If you study cloud formation, the "water" (ice) needs a particle to form around. C02 and plane exhaust soot is the perfect particle for the ice form around, because behind a plane, the two plainly exist.
edit on 16-2-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by 3danimator
 



Ok mate. Just answer these for me if you can.

1: Why would whoever you believe to be responsible for the chemtrails be spraying the very air that they and their loved ones breathe?


They think that reducing Global Warming by Geoengineering is a more important problem that that caused by the side effects of chemtrails.


2: If indeed they ARE spraying. Do you not think that after decades of doing it they might have noticed that whatever they were hoping to achieve (poising, brainwashing, controlling?) has failed?


You left out Geoengineering, it has not failed. Actually it's been so successful that people think AGW is a myth now.


3: Would it not be MUCH simpler to fiddle with our water?


They already do fiddle with our water. I do not support the theory that chemtrails are for the purpose of poisoning people. I think it's about raising the Earth's albedo to increase the radiative forcing effects of clouds to reduce Global warming



4: How has none of the hundreds of thousands of people who work with chemicals, planes, cargo, engineering etc... come forward about something weird going on?


They have, you're just not willing to accept them as being credible for some reason



And as for what contrails supposedly used to look like, you ARE aware that planes and their engines have changed hugely over the decades right? As have the altitudes they fly at. You are aware of this right?


I'm quite aware of all of it. Do you even know what Geoengineering is? If so why did you leave that part out of your post? You do know this forum is about Geoengineering right?

edit on 15-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)


So you have yet again answered with replies that mean nothing. There is no actual proof whatsoever of geoengineering. . And no one credible has ever come forward with, again, actual proof. This is all just a fantasy in your screwed up mind. Therefore i am out, i have better things to do than waste time arguing with someone who has no grasp on reality.Its pointless. And until you guys can give us actual PROOF, the world will continue to call you crazy.

I hope you get help some day.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


So mate, now that you have read some of the new replies, do you believe me about chemtrailers having mental issues? Its quite frightening isn't it?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 3danimator
 




Nice try, trying to bait me into an emotional argument you troll.

Geoengineering is a scientific fact. It does not matter whether there is proof of it's full scale use.

The methods have been researched and it is a reality.

Geoengineering is not a myth or figment of my imagination.

Go back to school or get a job. Because you really suck at this.

If you want to see crazy, come talk your smack to my face meathead.


edit on 16-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: spelling



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Really? Its a scientific fact that the governments around the world are engineering our weather and land ? Really?
Thats a fact is it? I suggest you look up the word "fact" in the dictionary mate. Because aside from the occasional cloud seeding, nothing else is going on.

And im not trying to lure you into an emotional argument. I genuinely, 100%, no bulls**t think you guys have some sort of mental issue to so readily believe all this stuff without questioning it and requiring hard evidence. See, thats what normal people do...



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 3danimator
 


I researched this topic for well over a year.

I made no claims about Governments using full scale Geoengineering currently.

I said that Geoengineering is a fact. Meaning it's a real science being studied and tested on many different levels and techniques.

I think you a completely ignorant troll. In fact I would say it's a fact.

You came in here with the usual ignorant comments "why would they poison themselves man?"

Never once mentioned Geoengineering and now you're trying to pretend to be some expert?



And how the heck would you know what taking place in the entire World from your little troll cave?

You don't know what happening down the block from your own house let alone in a different State or Country.

So, as far as I see it you are the crazy one for claiming you know for a fact what is taking place around the entire World.


Please, in your own words explain to me the meanings of SRM and CDR, albedo, radiative forcing, hygroscopic material
edit on 16-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


OK dude. Whatever. Good luck. Get help. Im out of this pointless pointless argument over something that doesnt even fu**ing exist.

I'm talking about chemtrails by the way. That's the topic we are on. You have no proof of it. Everything else you are spouting is fluff. Show us proof of chemtrails then ill get back to you.


edit on 16-2-2012 by 3danimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by 3danimator
 




Just like I thought

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


Crazy Troll



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Nope, not a troll. But i know you guys. ANY answer i give you, you will spin and then try to drown me in your "facts". No thanks. Id rather get into an argument with the crazy man under the bridge near me.

What remains clear is that you have no irrefutable proof. You have some things that are going on that are vaguely connected, but you have deemed fit to connect all the invisible dots and make a pattern that isnt there. You have NO credible witnesses, NO pictures that prove anything, nothing. Good luck getting them



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 3danimator
 


Do you even know what SRM is ?

CDR ?

Albedo ?

Radiative Forcing?


Anyone who has done the slightest research on Geoengineering should immediately know what those terms mean or at the very least be able to describe them with some relative accuracy.

Go ahead and show us your knowledge of this issue. Since you wants to make statements on it.
Quit stalling and googling man. Either you know it or you don't.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join