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.

 

I am slightly confused. Looking for Info

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAsay1LOVE
reply to post by network dude
 


i completely understand what you are saying; however, could you elaborate more on how this could be the cause of so many lines in a concentrated area, which seemingly come ridiculously fast and then stay..for upwards of 2-3 days, before they just spread out and form thin hazy clouds which sit low in the sky, and covers the sky? genuinely still perplexed by this occurrence. i just cant fathom any rational explanation for there being so many planes, in the same small area, cris-crossing in the sky and leaving these lasting lines, which eventually become hazy clouds


I don't think it's possible to have the same clouds in the sky for days or even hours. They will move out and new ones will come in. Most people don't have time to watch the same patch of sky for more than a few minutes. Here is a video to illustrate my point.


as to your phenomenon of checkerboards, Check out the flight aware link to see the number of flights directly over the area in question for any given 3 hour period. (usually the busiest is during the day)
edit on 29-2-2012 by network dude because: added thought.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


i follow what your saying, and agree...however, i do have videos that show the same lines and clouds looming stationary for hours, and even days in some cases. i promise you lol, this is why i continue with this thread to find more information. if i went solely on the facts provided, i would say the notion of chemtails is entertaining, but the plausibility is too far fetched; however, when i match what i have reviewed, with what i have witnessed and recorded, the information is not adding up

i have posted two separate times on this thread that if someone would message me how to embed a video from a blackberry then i would love to post my specific accounts so we can debate and dissect them



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 

If there is no wind clouds don't move. It would be highly unusual for clouds to remain stationary for days though. Clouds (of all types) will persist for as long as the conditions which cause them to form do.

But, even if they were "chemtrails" they would drift with any wind. I pointed this source out earlier. I don't know if you saw it. Not only are temperature and humidity at various altitudes available, so is wind information.
weather.uwyo.edu...

edit on 2/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


In order to post your own video, you will have to upload it somewhere. Youtube would be a good choice. Once it's there, I can help you get it into a thread.
I would be very interested to see clouds stay stationary for days. It would be a first and O would definitely learn something new.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


fair enough man, i will work to get them up on youtube...i dont have an account with them so ill go through all that and let you know. thank you



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 



....if the passengers are removed, and the missions were being flow under black operations, then couldnt the linked material hold relevance?



The FAA (in the USA, other nations operate with similar and common Internationally accepted safety guidelines, goverend by the ICAO) will still have jurisdiction over the safety....because they also have concerns about the people on the ground, too.


In other words, the "modifications" required per that proposal from 2009 mean substantial changes that have to be thoroughly tested and experimented before being granted approval for wide-spread operation.

The FAA has many layers of bureaucracy, and extensive regulations that cover these sorts of things. There is a category considered "Experimental" that can be granted on a case-by-case basis, for the actual flight testing. But, prior to that, there are other "hoops" to jump through, as part of the process.


The "contaminated" fuel idea seems completely unworkable, of course....so that leaves some sort of added-on apparatus and other systems to support it. Again, much regulation involved (whenever an existing airplane design is modified that extensively). It does vary, depending on the level of modification.

For example, let's use the addition in recent years of satellite TV services on airliners. That alone can be years in process, as the equipment manufacturers submit their designs, and it goes through the approval procedures. There have to be specific design drawings and installation descriptions. For the Sat TV, an external antenna of some sort was required, of course.....so, how to attach it safely to the fuselage structure? Then, the wiring had to find a way to be routed into the electronic components that will carry the TV signals to the monitors in the cabin....wiring that has to pass through from the unpressurized to the pressurized part of the interior cabin. (They could use routings where existing wires were already....from other communications and navigation antennas, of course....but still,this has to be strictly defined and approved).

That is just one relatively simple example. (**)

This "geoengineering" concept is far more complicated. The "spraying" devices -- the plumbing to them. The storage tanks onboard, the plumbing to them. Pumps to move the material. Electrical connections to power those pumps. Many, many things to work out.


Just saying "Black Ops" doesn't cover the reality of the enormous complexity....and, not even the U.S. Military (for example) can just willy-nilly disregard the FAA regulations to that extent. That only happens in Hollywood movie scripts.


(**)..and, to add to that, there is the tragic example of a passenger entertainment system design change that went horribly wrong. Swiss Air 111. It suffered an in-flight fire that started in the upper fuselage area (called the "attic" because it's above the false ceiling panels). This was just aft of the cockpit.

The reason was a recently upgraded Entertainment System and the wiring for it.....whether improperly installed, or poorly designed, the wires chaffed and there were some shorts and arcing...and fire resulted. Another factor was the sound insulation present....it was highly flammable, something not realized beforehand.


Here is an example of part of the full Canadian TSB report, specifically about how the Entertainment System was installed by the contractor who did the work:

www.tsb.gc.ca...


A seemingly minor electrical installation....for a video system for entertainment....resulted in a tragic crash.

You can read more in the full TSB of Canada Accident Report

I include this only as to the example of the sort of detail that goes into the safety of aviation, and the way oversight is taking seriously.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


nice. i did write down the link to research, but have yet to make it to that one. thank you for the clarification on the information available there.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


i appreciate the example and the information. makes a lot of sense in my opinion. thank you for humoring my hypothetical question



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


I would agree, the standard operation is under the guise of SRM.

There are deliverys under black ops, and some information on that
will post here: ( I posted the links about Tellers work previously )

Radio frequency propagation program dealing with radio waves and enables the RFMP system to
visually see the terrain of a battlefield in three dimensions on a television-type screen.


The RFMP system also depends on a satellites to supplement the images of a battlefield picture obtained from the ground, thus producing the 3-dimensional images. In providing an interactive picture portraying in the radar screen, the RFMP system allows the computer operator to develop familiarity with the "environment" before a war mission occurs by playing a variety of "what if?" virtual warfare scenarios on his computer screen. Since all major modes of radio frequency propagation are modeled in his computer (the RFMP system), special, sometimes counter-intuitive, cases can be examined in detail and exploited during a battle. Initially, the VTRPE computer program only worked accurately over water and along coastal areas but not over land masses because the system's radar waves required an atmospheric condition known as "ducting," over land, to operate accurately.

This "ducting" problem was solved by releasing an aerosol, a mixture of barium salts into the atmosphere over the United States. Thus, they can make an atmospheric radio frequency "duct" with a base of barium aerosol released from aircraft.

One of the researchers, the physicist from Brookhaven, explained how the process works: The chemical and electrical characteristics of the mixture cause moisture to stay in the clouds. The aerosol sets up an electrical and chemical environmental that supports RF ducting for the RFMP/VTRPE warfare system."The mixture of barium salt from the aerosol when sprayed in a straight line will also provide a ducting path form point A to point B and will enable high frequency communications along that path, even over the curvature of the Earth, in both directions," he said. "Enemy high frequency communications can be monitored easier with the straight line A to B ducting medium."

www.libertylobby.org...





VTRPE (variable terrain radio parabolic equation) computer model. It is designed to provide the reader with a summary of the physics and numerical methods used in the VTRPE model, along with detailed instructions on the model's use and operation. The VTRPE computer program is a range-dependent, tropospheric microwave propagation model that is based upon the split-step Fourier parabolic wave equation algorithm. The nominal applicable frequency range of the model is VHF to K-band. The VTRPE program is able to make predictions for microwave propagation over both land and water. The VTRPE code is a full-wave propagation model that solves the electromagnetic wave equations for the complex electric and magnetic radiation fields. The model accounts for the effects of nonuniform atmospheric refractivity fields, variable surface terrain, and varying surface dielectric properties on microwave propagation. The code is written in ANSI-77 FORTRAN with MILSPEC-1753 FORTRAN language extensions
www.abstractstorm.com...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

This "geoengineering" concept is far more complicated. The "spraying" devices -- the plumbing to them. The storage tanks onboard, the plumbing to them. Pumps to move the material. Electrical connections to power those pumps. Many, many things to work out.



Not so. Here is the easy way...


Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet

This option involves increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20,000 planes today) from 0.04% to 0.6 and increasing to 0.9% by 2050. Sulfur dioxide gas is emitted in the turbine exhaust and ideally, nearly all of it converted to sulfuric acid gas and then to sulfuric acid aerosol. The sulfuric acid aerosol floats around in the stratosphere for 1-2 years and reflects sunlight. The level in jet fuel is raised each year to match increased greenhouse gas emissions.


www.library4science.com...
www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


damn, right on burntheships lol. every time my mind starts clicking over to contrails, you give me relevance to stay the coarse. I dont know if that little voice telling me to keep looking will ever go away, and frankly i dont want it to. i have stated before, to limit the mind is to end mental progression; so thank you for constantly providing information which plays to my gut feeling, and allows my mind to continue to fly.



edit on 29-2-2012 by JAsay1LOVE because: lol, that last word was my attempt at making a pun. message solid, but for the pun choice i call LAME lol



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


I was looking into your links and was interested, but noticed the first is not much more than a blog and the second was released for public consumption in '91. According to chemtrail experts on this very sight, chemtrails didn't start until 97.

Do you have any official sources for this information? It seems plausible, but in reality, it reads just like most of the threads here.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Oh yes.

That bit of nonsense from some unnamed physicist from Brookhaven. Please provide evidence that barium (or any other material) aerosols will create electromagnetic ducting. I thought it was supposed to backscatter radiation. Wouldn't that mess up the "ducting" effect?

VTRPE? What does a radio propagation simulation have to do with anything?

Why do you keep trotting out that nonsense?



edit on 2/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I am certain that there is more out there on the ducting...and
you can do independent research on Brookhaven. They do a lot of
research with the MIC. That should be fairly easy to look up.

Liberty Lobby is not a blog, and at this point while the program is
still classified, its also easy enough to look up the 3D battlefield
info, you can easily see its all real. If your honestly looking, that is.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, I'll do better than that, I'll link to the previous conversation you and
I had on this before in a different thread. Not going to go over it with you again.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Did you ever find any evidence, other than that nonsense from Mike Blair, that aerosols create electromagnetic ducts?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
It seems plausible, but in reality, it reads just like most of the threads here.


my sentiments exactly. i mean that about the topic though lol. I would like to propose taking a different approach to our discussion here. the sides would stay the same.

perhaps in stead of asking the question, "Are they, or are they not real?" we should be asking the question-

Who would stand to gain from creating the idea of chemtrails, and pushing the theories into alternative media, and now glimpsing on msm?

for the argument of "are they" is drawing near a stalemate (if not already there), but by asking why would this idea be invented, and investigating scientifically whom would have conceived the notion, perhaps then new light could be shed on the subject?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


here is where I am at. Please don't take the the wrong way, but reverse the situation and I am sure you will agree.
Until I see something that points to an official source of information on this subject, I am going to treat most of it with a very large grain of salt. I am not going to search for hours looking for a scrap of some other non official document to only muddy the waters more. If this was real, and it is as you say, then there should be some information on it. More than an independent newspaper that only publishes internet "blogs".

When I present something as fact, I am asked to provide a source for said fact. If I don't, I am forced to concede that my facts are not proven, hence not fact.

The problem with posting information like you have, is that some people will take it as fact and start spreading it. Believe it or not, some folks aren't all that smart. In an environment like this, where we can share all kinds of information, it's important to provide the best quality material or at least portray what is being presented fairly. (IMHO)

I even fact check Phage just to be sure.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Oh, dear......why do you keep confusing the issue by moving the goalposts? (And the facts!!)

You firstly reference the article about using some compound of the metal Bismuth.....THEN, switch to another entirely different article about Sulphur content.

The existence of Sulpher in Jet fuel is known, already. In decades past, it was deemed a "good idea" to reduce its amount of concentration, as a method to improve emissions standards!! (Hint: Less air pollution, and less detrimental impact on the Ozone Layer).


So, now: The point of BOTH of those techniques being suggested is simply to make more "nucleic particulates" available in engine exhaust, IF (a huge "if") it is deemed necessary to stimulate more and more persistent contrail formation.

PERIOD!!

The concept is simple: More particulates available, then more likely for contrails to form, as the water vapor already produced by the fuel combustion will then have something to condense on.

SO far, there really already are substantial amounts of such particulates that occur naturally in the atmosphere (from a variety of natural sources: Dust, Sea Salt, etc.....And from man-made ground-based pollution, too), but this is a proposal to increase them per the idea that adding additional cirrus cloud coverage may be beneficial (or even necessary) someday.

NOTHING there indicates that it is currently happening! Not one iota of data suggests this. It is not difficult to comprehend, once the biases are filtered out of the data being read.

In the case of the sulphur content in the fuel, it is tiny when compared to the Bismuth idea. The sulphur is already there, in the raw unrefined oil! It is the refining process that attempts to remove and mitigate it as much as possible, currently. Because it is an un-wanted pollutant.



HERE is more on sulphur in Jet fuel. Not only does decreasing sulphur lower the "bad" emissions, it also improves engine health, and lowers maintenance costs. SO, increasing the sulphur is going to be resisted by the aviaiton community, which are in the buisness of lowering their costs, and maximizing profits:

Why is sulphur content low in aviation fuel?


Emissions are one of the reasons, but removing the sulfur makes it burn cleaner, thus increasing the life of the engine. That is also the reason for the high cost as diesel and jet fuel are the first products out of the cracking process. That should make it cheap, but removing the sulfur costs a lot more. Note the price of diesel at the pump, it costs more than premium unleaded gas.



edit on Wed 29 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 


Who would stand to gain from creating the idea of chemtrails, and pushing the theories into alternative media, and now glimpsing on msm?


What DOESN'T take a vast secretive bureaucracy to organise is a HOAX so that unethical and cynical individuals can benefit from paranoia, ignorance of aviation and gullibility in the general public and make money out of them through deliberately spreading fear.
Convince enough members of the public that water condensation in the sky is a threat, then SELL them cures for ....water.

Follow the Money
edit on 2/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join