The Chemtrail Hoax

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Six Reasons why "Chemtrails" are a Hoax
I first heard about "chemtrails" about five years ago, from an individual on a pre-Y2k preparedness forum. About six months later, I logged onto one of the chemtrail forums, and followed many links, evaluating both pro-chemtrail and anti-chemtrail research. I have also talked to many people about these phenomena, including meteorologists, commercial airplane pilots/crew, and other aerospace engineers with direct experience with large fixed-wing aircraft. I came to conclusions that I would like to discuss below; but first, I'd like to tell you about me, because it may (or may not) give you some insights as to why I believe what I do.

First, I want to emphasize that I do not speak for, or act as an agent for, my employer, The Boeing Company, in any way, shape, or form. My views are completely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views on anyone else at Boeing. As a matter of fact, I doubt if most of my colleagues have even heard of chemtrails. However, with thirty years in the aerospace/defense business, experience as a pilot (small aircraft only) and a habit of reading a lot, I hope that my views have something to back them up. Okay, here's my read on the view that some contrails are more than normal jet engine exhaust:

It's completely bogus. The idea that long-lasting contrails are anything other than normal contrails, in my belief, fails on six counts:

1. The existence of a huge and sinister plot is completely lacking in evidence.

2. The logistics of a massive spraying program would be an order of magnitude higher than the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Moon Landing, or the Vietnam War -- and simply could not be hidden from any oversight.

3. There is no evidence whatsoever of aircraft modified to perform some of the spraying methodologies that are proposed.

4. Anecdotal "evidence" of any illnesses caused by contrails is not backed up by any reliable data (and is actually contradicted by others).

5. There has never been any evidence of anyone collecting some of this "chemtrail" material in situ, having it tested by any reputable laboratory, and presented to anyone.

6. Every characteristic of chemtrails can be just as logically and rationally explained by normal contrails under normal (but differentiating) atmospheric conditions.

Now let's look at those counts in a bit more detail.

(1) The existence of a huge and sinister plot is completely lacking in evidence. The President; Congress; SecDef; Director of the FAA; the entire command structure of the various armed services; every military man or woman who flies, maintains, fuels, and overhauls aircraft; every commercial pilot and crew member; every meteorologist; and every aerospace engineer who builds, sells, modifies, or maintains the entire fleet of worldwide commercial aircraft comprise a group of about half a million people. Every one of them would have to be in on the plot. And in the X number of years that this "chemtrail" stuff has been going on, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has come out and said anything about it! What is the chance of a plot that requires the help of a half-million people being secret for more than six milliseconds? Zero.
As a matter of fact, there is no evidence of any sort of plot of any kind by the Bilderbergers, Illuminati, International Zionists, CFR, NWO, the International House of Pancakes, or anyone else.

Is our government corrupt and immoral? I believe so. Is the UN controlled by a bunch of socialist third-world losers with their hands out for the US to feed them and fight their wars for them? I think so, too. But that does NOT mean that they are heading a huge, secret, centuries-old plot to have the Black Helicopters Manned By Crack Bolivian Troops In Blue Berets Haul Us Off To The Secret Concentration Camps In Roachspit, Texas Where We Will Be Forced To Knit UN Flags And Eat Ebola-Burgers. It just means that they're crooks! So what else is new?

(2) The logistics of a massive spraying program. In order to have the massive worldwide spraying that the chemtrail-protagonists talk about would require thousands of aircraft, flying 24/7 shifts, with the additional support infrastructure, a bazillion pilots and ground crew, and the combined efforts of every employee at Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and even Airbus Industrie. It isn't there.

(3) There is no evidence whatsoever of aircraft modified to perform some of the spraying methodologies that are proposed. The only things I have ever seen on an aircraft that shoot things out (besides the engine exhaust) is the toilet and the fuel dump orifices, often at the wing tip. If the aircraft are squirting chemicals out of the fuel dump nozzles, what's in the fuel tanks? Poisonous chemicals? Huh-uh. (One exception to this is a military version of a civilian aircraft called TACAMO, a Navy variant of the AWACS aircraft. It has these oddball nozzles near the base of the wings. But they're still fuel-dump nozzles; they've merely been moved inboard because the TACAMO has reconnaissance pods at the wingtips, and they don't want to jettison JP-8 over the million-dollar electronics.)

Bear in mind that you don't just strap in a couple of big tanks and poke the nozzles out through the aircraft fuselage. There are VERY stringent engineering details to be worked out regarding structural integrity, movable center of gravity, environmental protection for the crew and poison-loaders, etc. Almost all major mods to an aircraft are done under subsequent contract to the original builder. Since no one at Boeing knows anything about such mods (and I've asked around) this means it either wasn't done, or everyone else (but me) in the company is in on the secret. Huh-uh.

(4) Anecdotal "evidence" of any illnesses caused by contrails is not backed up. One of the hypotheses of "chemtrails" is that they're toxic/infectious/bad juju. Various people report that they came down with flu-like symptoms after a heavy "spray day". As someone who does a lot of travel (domestic and international), I've flown out of a lot of airports and through a lot of other aircraft's contrails over the past five years.
If the poison-chemtrail hypothesis had any merit, there would be tons of sick passengers crawling off the 0900 shuttle to LAX; I've never seen 'em, nor has anyone I've talked with. If there is some weird residue in the contrails other than water with traces of JP-8, you'd see aircraft taxiing into the concourse with some sort of crud over the leading edges. I've never seen any of that, nor has anyone I've talked with.
One possible explanation for those flu-like symptoms? Flu. There's tons of it going around, and it's been that way since 1918.

(5) There has never been any evidence of anyone collecting some of this "chemtrail" material in situ, having it tested by any reputable laboratory, and presented to anyone. With all the interest in this crud, why hasn't anyone ever flown up to a "chemtrail", sampled some of the stuff, and brought it back to a reputable lab for test and reported on it?

One site purporting to talk about a laboratory testing a sample told how some individual scraped "something" off the side of a house, and sent it to one of the chemtrail protagonists. This individual sent it to a laboratory where he says they reported it had some bacteria in it. But then the individual says the lab "changed its mind" and said there was nothing wrong. Not only that, but our friend said he would not tell us the name of either the lab or the investigator because of ... of... something or other. That sure raises a credibility issue to me! Another researcher says he has the information, but he wants to be "compensated" for all the work he's put in before he tells us his tale. Puh-leez!

If there were just one case of someone with any credibility collecting some of this junk before it falls to the earth and gets worms on it, then sends it to a lab where objective individuals can review it under open conditions and publish their findings, that might lend a bit more credence to the whole chemtrail business. I'm waiting, but I don't think I'll skip dinner.

(6) Every characteristic of chemtrails can be just as logically and rationally explained by normal contrails under normal (but differentiating) atmospheric conditions.

But first, let’s take a minute and discuss what contrails are, anyway.

Contrails happen when the water vapor from the jet’s exhaust freezes into an ice cloud. If the temperature is at or below –40 degrees and the relative humidity is at a hundred percent or greater, then the ice cloud will stay frozen, and even act as a nucleus for other ice clouds to form around. This is why sometimes a contrail will “spread” to form larger clouds. If you have enough aircraft flying and making contrails, and the atmospheric conditions at that altitude are “proper” for contrail formation and persistence, then you can have the entire sky covered with thin clouds.

If the temperature is above minus forty degrees or less than 100% relative humidity, then the ice crystals will sublime (turn back into gas without going through a liquid phase, like dry ice) in about a minute or less and the contrails will disappear.

This increased cloud cover, by the way, can have serious long-term effects, when you think about it. More cloud cover means cooler days (because the clouds block the sunlight coming in during the day) and warmer nights (because the clouds block the heat radiating out into space at night). This “diurnal temperature delta” or the difference between day and night temperatures, could have some long-term effects, because most plants and animals in a particular environment have adapted to a temperature difference of so many degrees. When this figure is left, the plants and animals might not be able to thrive.

So when you put it this way, contrails can have a possible bad effect on the environment. But that’s not what the chemtrail-believers are talking about.

Now to the “weird chemtrails”:

“Dashed” contrails? Sometimes you’ll see contrails that start and stop, just like dashed lines. Some Chemtrail-believers say that such things are “proof” of chemtrails, because the start and stop contrails are the result of the “spray nozzles” getting stuck or something.

Now does it seem kind of odd to you that a powerful gang running secret plot which includes a million people can’t seem to be able to keep a simple on-off nozzle working? Actually, the reasons that you have start-and-stop contrails is because the atmosphere is not constant and smooth; it’s very turbulent (which is why we have clouds and wind). It’s pretty common to have one spot at, say, 35,000 feet where the temperature/humidity is at –40/100%, yet only a quarter mile away, the temperature’s a degree or so higher, or the humidity is a percentage point less. That’s enough to stop the contrail from persisting. And believe me, an aircraft flying at 550 miles per hour covers that quarter mile in just a couple of seconds!

Circular contrails? Often, an airport may be backed up and the air traffic control folks might ‘stack up’ aircraft in a circular holding pattern for a half-hour (or even longer). If that plane’s flying in a circle at the proper temperature/humidity profile, you’ll see circular contrails.

Two “side-by-side” contrails, one that dissipates in a matter of minutes, and the other which persists for hours? The chances are that they’re not side-by-side, but one is a thousand feet or more higher than another. When you’re looking at aircraft at a cruising altitude, you simply can’t tell which aircraft is closer. You have no frame of reference except the sky, and besides six miles high is just too far for us to have any kind of depth perception at all.

“Tic-tac-toe” contrails? No matter where you live in the continental United States, you are probably within view of at least one North-South and one East-West air corridor. So you might be seeing three aircraft on the DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth to LAX (Los Angeles International) corridor and four from Phoenix Sky Harbor to Seattle-Tacoma International corridor. These flights could be five minutes and two thousand feet apart, but if they’re high enough, you’ll see seven lines crossing – just like a tic-tac-toe. (you probably won’t see any X’s or O’s, though).

Conclusion

So why the big deal with "Chemtrails"? I think there're popular on the boards for several reasons.

1. Conspiracies are fun! If you think you know what they're REALLY doing, maybe it makes you feel more powerful and on the "inside". Only the "sheeple" believe all the government lies, where WE know better. You remember the sheeple, of course -- they were those poor fools who believed that Y2K was going to be, at worse, a bump in the road. Shows how dumb they were, right?

2. Most chemtrail conspiracy theorists simply don't know much about things that would help them to disbelieve such hypotheses: stuff like engineering, meteorology, government procurement, military force structure, etc. But most importantly, the most of these individuals simply don't understand how scientific investigation and research works. They confuse opinion with facts, equate hypotheses with theories, do not reason logically, engage in ad hominem arguments, cannot or will not read peer-reviewed journals --- the list goes on and on.

Maybe I shouldn't get so exercised about the whole chemtrail business. In a way, it's like the belief in the Easter Bunny -- it keeps the folks happy; and as long as they don't try to shoot down a "chemtrail" plane, or assassinate or otherwise harass people who disagree with them, they're harmless.

But there are so many important things in the world that I consider a real priority -- Government intrusion into our lives, a nutburg foreign and domestic policy, the chance that a natural disaster may justify all those old Y2K preps, the pollution of our atmosphere and destruction of our environment by hydrocarbon burning -- that I hate to think that well-meaning but naive people on these and other forums are wasting their time on what is no more than a silly and cruel hoax.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]




posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
That right there is a well thought out post. I used to think that just maybe it was possible, but after some hard researching i've come to the same conclusion as you have.



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Well firstly chemtrails are not a worldwide phenomena, they only seem to occur in North America.

Secondly, all those military bases with the guards, the wire fences, and high security mean most of us without a clearance are never going to see those aircraft on the ground anyway.

No effects ? The government says agent orange is harmless, Gulf War syndrome does not exist, and so on. If you believe everything the government claims, you would either work for them, be a complete fool, or both. In a few years when servicemen (and women) are dead before their time with poisoning from depleted uranium, there will be total denial about that as well. Wait and see.

It's like fluoride in the water, you cannot see it, cannot taste it, so it is not there right ?

Something is going on all right, there are just too many eyewitness reports, and photographs to back it up. If it was for the public good, it would not be secret.

It is only happening in America, so it is not some secret plan to save the planet. It is something the American government are doing to Americans.


jra

posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Excellent post Off_The_Street. You pretty much spoke my mind on this subject (and wrote it out much better than I could have). You made a lot of logical and well thought out points. Especially with point number 1.

There seems to be more evidence in the exsistance of "Grey's" than of "chemtrails". At least with the alien conspiracy theories you get people who claim to be in-the-know on such matters or happen to know some one who does (whether they're true or not is up to debate), but with "chemtrails", you dont get anyone coming out and saying, "I worked on aircraft that sprayed chemtrails". I've never seen anyone claim to anyway.

Not only does this "chemtrail" theory lack evidence, it lacks motive. For what reason would "they" want to spray the people of the US (or the world for that matter) with harmful chemicals? It would have to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. Not only would it harm the everyday unsuspecting citizen, they'd be harming themselves. We all breath the same air. If I were some evil mastermind that was apart of some sinister plot to poison people. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be poisoning myself at the same time.

Anyway, great post Off_The_Street.



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Warpspeed says:

“Well firstly chemtrails are not a worldwide phenomena, they only seem to occur in North America.”

Not so at all. If you go to all the “chemtrail” websites, such as Cliff Carnicon’s (www.carnicom.com...); Mark Steadham’s (www.chemtrailcentral.com...) or just about any of the “chemtrail” sites still left, they will all contain posts from people in the UK and Europe talking about “chemtrails”.

You’ll see more contrails in the United States, of course, simply because we have more airline flights.

”Secondly, all those military bases with the guards, the wire fences, and high security mean most of us without a clearance are never going to see those aircraft on the ground anyway.”

I see these contrail producing aircraft all the time on the ground; they're primarily commercial passenger aircraft built by The Boeing Company and Airbus Industrie. They're at places like Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix; Dulles, Ronald Reagan, and BWI in the Baltimore/Washington area; DFW in Texas, LAX in California; and both Tokyo/Narita and Kyoto/Kansai in Japan. If you have “Flight Explorer” software on your computer (www.flightexplorer.com...), you could look at just about any contrail-producing aircraft and see what flight it is -- as well as its altitude, location, and vector -- in real time.

”No effects ? The government says agent orange is harmless, Gulf War syndrome does not exist, and so on.”

And what does that have to do with “chemtrails”?

“If you believe everything the government claims, you would either work for them, be a complete fool, or both.”

There’re a lot of things about the government that I don’t trust. But my belief that “chemtrails” are a hoax isn’t based on any sheeple-like acceptance of the government as the Good Guys; it’s because there’s no evidence for "chemtrails" that makes any sense. I think if you will read my post you will find six reasons, none of which have anything to do with belief -- or disbelief -- in the government.

"Something is going on all right, there are just too many eyewitness reports, and photographs to back it up.”

There are a lot of photographs of persistent contrails, all right, but pictures of persistent contrails are not evidence of the existence of some “chemtrail” plot -- any more than pictures of Christmas presents are evidence of the existence of Santa Claus!


“If it was for the public good, it would not be secret.”

You can use that same "logic" to prove that the government is covering up the existence of the Easter Bunny! It’s not that it’s secret, it’s that it doesn’t exist LOL!

”It is only happening in America, so it is not some secret plan to save the planet. It is something the American government are doing to Americans.”

Well yes -- an no. No, persistent contrails are all over and people are claiming that they’re “chemtrails” all over (see links above) -- and Yes, you’re right: it is not some secret plot to save the planet.

It is not some secret plot at all. It’s just a scam.

EDITED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL URLS:

Here's a guy who reports "chemtrails" in Amsterdam: www.unknowncountry.com...

And a report of "chemtrails" in Berlin: www.rense.com...

And here's one in -- guess where, mate! www.rense.com...

Crikey!


[edit on 23-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
Well firstly chemtrails are not a worldwide phenomena, they only seem to occur in North America.

. . . .


It is only happening in America, so it is not some secret plan to save the planet. It is something the American government are doing to Americans.



And you live where?




Registered: 26-9-2003
Location:: Melbourne Australia



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
JRA says:

"Not only does this "chemtrail" theory lack evidence, it lacks motive. For what reason would "they" want to spray the people of the US (or the world for that matter) with harmful chemicals? It would have to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. Not only would it harm the everyday unsuspecting citizen, they'd be harming themselves."

Well, sure. When you figure that persistent contrails (even if they were something other than ice crystals) start at about 10000 to 12000 meters altitude, and that, at that altitude, you typically have jet-stream velocities of over 175 km/hr and ice crystals of that minute size might fall at about 10 m/hr...

By the time the "chemtrails" hit the ground (if they ever do) it would be three or four days later and a couple hundred miles from where they were "sprayed"!

Which is why I have to scratch my head at the reports of the "chemtrail" believers who will report a jet "spraying chemtrails" and then, within a half-hour or so, they report getting dizzy and nauseated.

Wow.



posted on Sep, 23 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Six Reasons why "Chemtrails" are a Hoax (3) There is no evidence whatsoever of aircraft modified to perform some of the spraying methodologies that are proposed. The only things I have ever seen on an aircraft that shoot things out (besides the engine exhaust) is the toilet and the fuel dump orifices, often at the wing tip. If the aircraft are squirting chemicals out of the fuel dump nozzles, what's in the fuel tanks? Poisonous chemicals? Huh-uh. (One exception to this is a military version of a civilian aircraft called TACAMO, a Navy variant of the AWACS aircraft. It has these oddball nozzles near the base of the wings. But they're still fuel-dump nozzles; they've merely been moved inboard because the TACAMO has reconnaissance pods at the wingtips, and they don't want to jettison JP-8 over the million-dollar electronics.)

Bear in mind that you don't just strap in a couple of big tanks and poke the nozzles out through the aircraft fuselage. There are VERY stringent engineering details to be worked out regarding structural integrity, movable center of gravity, environmental protection for the crew and poison-loaders, etc. Almost all major mods to an aircraft are done under subsequent contract to the original builder. Since no one at Boeing knows anything about such mods (and I've asked around) this means it either wasn't done, or everyone else (but me) in the company is in on the secret. Huh-uh.


Dead on the money as far the civilian aircraft go…


I have read these stories of guys loading stuff on the planes through the toilet system, and it going through special hoses and spraying out the trailing edge of the wing. They even sometime show the ports on the back of the airfoil as proof. Well the last time I worked around aircraft, there was no special group of agents loading anything into the toilet system, just regular cabin service guys, putting in the regular blue water.

That blue water is NOT dumped while in flight; it is dumped into a truck at the next airport. Now occasionally there is leakage, and you get the blue ice that forms inside the door, but that is just like a faucet dripping and building up.

As far as fueling, I have personally done this, and there are generally two wing tanks, and a center, sometimes an Aux tank on a plane. The wing vents are at the end of the wings, and should not be dumping out anything under normal circumstances. If the plane has an extremely full gas tank, sometimes some fuel might splash out of these tanks in flight or while taxiing, but in general nothing should be coming out the vents. The only other exception to this is if the plane has to make an emergency landing and is too heavy to land, they can dump fuel from there to lighten the load.

The only other liquid that is pumped onto a civilian jet is the potable water, for the sinks and gallies.

The tubes on the trailing edge, as far as I could tell where to let the condensation that builds up around the fuel tanks have a place to drain from the wings. Those tubes have existed on planes back to at least the 707’s made in the 1950’s (oldest planes I have personally worked on). Fuel tanks tend to get cold at high altitude, and some planes come in with the wings actually incased in snow/ice, that’s all from condensation.


jra

posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, sure. When you figure that persistent contrails (even if they were something other than ice crystals) start at about 10000 to 12000 meters altitude, and that, at that altitude, you typically have jet-stream velocities of over 175 km/hr and ice crystals of that minute size might fall at about 10 m/hr...

By the time the "chemtrails" hit the ground (if they ever do) it would be three or four days later and a couple hundred miles from where they were "sprayed"!

Which is why I have to scratch my head at the reports of the "chemtrail" believers who will report a jet "spraying chemtrails" and then, within a half-hour or so, they report getting dizzy and nauseated.

Wow.


Oh yeah that's right. I'd forgotten about that. It's a very important detail that some people don't stop to think about it seems.

I think the symptoms people claim to get is nothing more than just some psychological thing (there's a name for that, but I forget what you call it). If some one's really worried that they're going to get sick, they will probably start to feel like they are.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Did you happen to miss the ATS debate on Chemtrails? Courtesy of NephraTari's debate (link to the debate thread located at the bottom of this message. Note that the picture and quoted text originally came from the Air Force Reserve Command website:




Six Modular Aerial Spray Systems (MASS) are available at the 910 AW to conduct aerial spray missions.

Each system can be configured with up to four 500 gallon tanks for a total volume of 2000 gallons.

C-130H aircraft are modified to perform aerial application. Modifications consist mostly of ULV and LV wing line installation and electrical modifications.


www.afrc.af.mil...



Spray System. The MASS is built by Lockheed/Conair. One of the major design criteria of the MASS was that it had to be a "roll-on/roll-off" system allowing the aircraft to be reconfigured for spray or airlift in under an hour. To accommodate the Roll-on/Roll-off design, the full MASS is designed in 3 modules, each attached to modified standard (463L) aircraft cargo pallets. The operators console, pumps, catwalks, and cradles for flush and chemical tanks are all secured to these modified pallets. The pallets lock into the C-130's dual rail system. Once the MASS is loaded, interconnecting plumbing and electrical circuits tie the MASS modules together. To contain any spillage of spray materials, a 1.5" lip (drip pan) surrounds the pallets. The dry weight of the MASS is ca. 10,500 lbs.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

MK

EDIT: From the medical end of things, a fascinating article abstract from the Journal of the American Medical Association referencing health dangers associated with fine particulates in the air. Assuming that something is being released in the air by the above described MASS systems, might there be a rationale for further research?

Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.

Pope CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD.

Department of Economics, Brigham Young University, 142 FOB, Provo, UT 84602, USA. cap3@email.byu.edu

CONTEXT: Associations have been found between day-to-day particulate air pollution and increased risk of various adverse health outcomes, including cardiopulmonary mortality. However, studies of health effects of long-term particulate air pollution have been less conclusive. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution and all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Vital status and cause of death data were collected by the American Cancer Society as part of the Cancer Prevention II study, an ongoing prospective mortality study, which enrolled approximately 1.2 million adults in 1982. Participants completed a questionnaire detailing individual risk factor data (age, sex, race, weight, height, smoking history, education, marital status, diet, alcohol consumption, and occupational exposures). The risk factor data for approximately 500 000 adults were linked with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. RESULTS: Fine particulate and sulfur oxide--related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-microg/m(3) elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended particles were not consistently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In other words, risk of diagnosable medical illness increases with each 10-mgm increment exposure.

MK

[edit on 24-9-2004 by MKULTRA]



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 04:33 AM
link   
It's NWO LIVE!

(peppy Jazz intro)

I loved your post, off the street.

I must agree with all your reasonings. well done.

Debunking is always a thankless task; almost as unwelcome as whistleblowing.

Now back to my sky blue flag knitting.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
Secondly, all those military bases with the guards, the wire fences, and high security mean most of us without a clearance are never going to see those aircraft on the ground anyway.


I'm not aware of any bases where you can't watch the planes land. I watch them land all the time, and every base I've been near has civilian locations that have a view of part or all of the hangars & runways.

So while you can't walk up to them and inspect them by hand, you can certainly take photos, use binoculars, etc to study the planes as they take off and land.

And it's interesting that all the avaitation buffs wo do exactly that (photograph, study, etc) aircraft never spot strange configurations of the planes and ask around to see what it might be. They never say "Hey, I saw a C-130 landing and it had rows of nozzles under the wings - any ideas? Here's my photos I took as it passed overhead". It just doesn't happen.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
i don't think it would take 1,000's of planes operating 24/7....did anyone ever suggest there was a 'round the clock massive operation going on ?


after looking at the human experimentation tab on ats, i don't doubt the spraying could be something like that....



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Wow
We truly are living in the Twilight Zone. Im willing to bet if ABC news and all the other major networks were to telvise an alien mother ship landing everyone would dismiss it as a Industrial Light and Magic Hoax www.ilm.com...


Especially with 10,000 witnesses on the ground.


Poor poor anti-conspiracy theorists



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Posted by MK Ultra Post Number: 822482

Did you happen to miss the ATS debate on Chemtrails? Courtesy of NephraTari's debate (link to the debate thread located at the bottom of this message. Note that the picture and quoted text originally came from the Air Force Reserve Command website:


Now MK Ultra,,,,your disturbing the ATS Lodge with facts again from those false military websites. Present them with Koolaid and see how fast they snatch it from your hands


Good post



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
MKULTRA says:

Did you happen to miss the ATS debate on Chemtrails?”

No; as a matter of fact, it was reading the debate that inspired me to share my views on “chemtrails” and to discuss them with my colleagues here.

“… Note that the picture and quoted text originally came from the Air Force Reserve Command website:”

True. It’s from the 910th Airlift Wing in Vienna, Ohio. You can see the MASS being loaded on a Lockmart C-130, as well as a C-130 actually using the device, at the following URL: www.af.mil...

For what it’s worth, here are the procurement specifications for the MASS, from Commerce Business Daily: www.cbd-net.com...

However, notice that the MASS is designed for and deployed in the C-130 Hercules and no other plane. AS a matter of fact, the Hercules itself must be modified to incorporate that system. Since the MASS is designed as a RoRo unit, any aircraft that would use one of these would need large cargo doors built into the back or the front (not the side) of the fuselage; the only jet aircraft that have that capability in the inventory are the Lockheed C-5A and the Boeing C-17.

But none of the aircraft reported to be involved in “chemtrail” spraying are turboprop aircraft like the Hercules, and most of them are either Boeing 7-series aircraft, McDonnell Douglas MD-11/DC10s, or militarized versions of those aircraft. None of them could even mount the MASS, which pretty well eliminates it as a “suspect” in the “chemtrail spraying”.

As a matter of fact, the C-130/MASS system requires the aircraft to fly at low altitudes, since the higher the aircraft flies the more lateral and time dispersal there would be, and the less effective the spraying would be. this is why, for exampls, you see crp-dusters flying so low over the fields they're spraying; if they flew and dispersed their contents at higher than, say, fifteen or twenty feet, the spray would go over the next field or (even worse) the local elementary school.

The balance of your post quotes various medical aspects of diseases tied to particulate air pollution. I find the correlation of increase in cardiopulmonary disease with the increase in airborne combustion-related fine particulate air pollution a very serious one, and it is one more reason why we should get away from burning hydrocarbons for our power requirements.

But fine particulate air pollution, does not imply “chemtrails”; I think what they’re talking about is the result of burning hydrocarbons (which, of course, includes normal jet engine exhaust). And burning hydrocarbons come from oil- and coal-fired electrical generating plants (which also exhaust a lot of barium compounds), automobiles, and even particulates from natural sources, such as wild fires and volcanic activity.

Notice that “chemtrails” are not even referred to by name in the post.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Project Pisces says:

"Especially with 10,000 witnesses on the ground."

If you're talking about people on the ground seeing persistent contrails, the number would be more like a million than ten thousand! There's no doubt whatsoever that worldwide persistent contrails are there for everyone to see -- and eveyone who chooses to look up will see them.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the people looking up at them will be necessarily be able to interpret what they see correctly!



[edit on 24-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Radagast says:

" ...i don't doubt the spraying could be something like that.... "

You're right; it could be a lot of things:

It could be a Big Secret Plot to infect us all with a disease which will weaken and kill us all but the government doesn't want anyone to panic.

It could be a Big Secret Plot to inoculate us from a new bioweapon which accidentally got out of the Government Death Laboratories and will kill us if we don't get the antidote but the government doesn't want anyone to panic.

It could be a Big Secret Plot to sterilize all of the (pick your race or religion) and thereby save the world for the (pick your race or religion).

It could be a Big Secret Plot by the Little Purple Men from Arcturus to tenderize us all for the Big Arcturian barbecue that they're having in 2012 with us as the guests of honor (yumyumyum).

It could be anyof those things, and no one can prove that it's not, because you can't prove a negative.

But there's no evidence whatsoever for a Big Secret Plot to spray anything, whether it's disease vectors, antibodies, or Arcturian A-1 Sauce.



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by project_pisces
Posted by MK Ultra Post Number: 822482

Did you happen to miss the ATS debate on Chemtrails? Courtesy of NephraTari's debate (link to the debate thread located at the bottom of this message. Note that the picture and quoted text originally came from the Air Force Reserve Command website:


Now MK Ultra,,,,your disturbing the ATS Lodge with facts again from those false military websites. Present them with Koolaid and see how fast they snatch it from your hands


Good post




To date, the only real evidence offered in support of chemtrails has been the visual observation of long lasting lines in the sky.

The promoters of the chemtrail hoax refer to these as “chemtrails.”

Meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, pilots, climatologists, etc. refer to these long lasting lines in the sky as persistent contrails. The science of contrail formation is fairly well understood by scientists, and persistent contrails are just one aspect of that phenomenon.

What evidence do you have to offer that contradicts the established scientific view that these long lasting lines in the sky are anything more than persistent contrails?



posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Now, one's view of reality is directly proportional to how well one perseives and excepts what is true. To classify something to be true usually requires facts, evidence and/or personal observation of the subject at hand.

With this in mind I would like to relay some facts and personal obervations that I have made on this subject after I've giving you a little back-ground on myself.

Back-ground and knowladge of Aircraft: My interest in aircraft began early with my father serving four years in the air force after which working for a major commercial airline until recently retiring. A couple of times he even brought me to work with him and I would spend the day exploring every inch of a DC-10 or 747 that was in for overhaul, what more could a kid ask for? Any how, my dad had taught me a lot about big aircraft, so much so that I could tell you if it was a DC-10 or L10-11 flying overhead just by the sound on the engines.

The one thing my Dad taught me that I remember most, is what a contrail was. He explained how at higher altitudes the water vapor (ice crystals) in the air would get heated as it went through the engine and come out as steam, that is why it always dissipated shortly behind the plane. He also told me the plane itself can sometimes make a contrail from the surface heat generated by air friction, like you see on the wing tips of fighter jets at high speed. I was fasinated by them, I would sometimes watch for hours looking for planes leaving a contrail and watching it disappear behind the plane. That's the one thing they always did, disappear. This being the norm for my location in the California Bay Area, but it seems something has changed because they don't always disappear anymore.

Fact: If two similar aircraft are at the same altitude and flight path one can't leave a contrail without the other leaving one also. Either they both do or they both don't.

Observation: On several occations I have witnessed one aircraft leaving a contrail that doesn't dissipate while all other aircraft in the area leave none

Fact: An aircraft can not turn a contrail on and off at will. The water content of the air in which the aircraft is traveling may change, in turn increasing or decreasing how much contrail is being produced, but it can't just stop and start in short segments.

Observation: On too many occations to be considered a meteorogical anomaly, I have witnessed aircraft leaving a thick non-dissipating contrail that suddenly stops then restarts leaving a blank approximately 1000' section in an otherwise continuous line.

Fact: If the water content of the air is too low a contrail can not be produced. This condition being very common in states like Arizone and New mexico but can acure any where in the U.S. being more likely in the western states.

Observation: I have witnessed aircraft leaving non-dissapating contrails when reported conditions say it's not possible.

Fact: Ariel spraying of any type, like crop dusting for example, does not get performed in high wind conditions. High wind conditions making it too difficult to contain spraying to targeted area for the crop dusting example.

Observation: I have yet to see any non-dissapating contrails on very windy days.

Fact: Contrails are usually only produced at higher altitudes but may occur at lower altitudes in very rare conditions.

Observation: Almost all non-dissapating contrails that I have witnessed have been at lower altitudes. I have even witnessed an aircraft make a tight U-turn at an altitude no higher then low cloud cover, leaving a non-dissapating contrail which visibly expanding while falling to ground level in no more then half an hour.

Fact: The Air Force currently has a large inventory of the no longer produced McDonald Dougles DC-10 that have been converted to tanker aircraft.

Observation: I have personally seen these aircraft at Travis Air Force Base in Vacaville, Ca.

Fact: All aircraft excluding some small single engine aircraft have the ability to dump there fuel loads in preperation and likelihood of a crash landing.

Observation: I can't say that I know what a tanker coversion consist of but I do know that what ever the tanks are full of, wether it be fuel or what not, can be discharged at any altitude at any time.

Fact: There are several commercials, shows and even cartoons on T.V. that have scenes were the sky can be seen with contrails in them.

Observation: I have seen too many to list but I like this one because you don't have to believe me, you can easily check it out for yourself, and when you see it's true you have to ask yourself why? Why would anyone want to fill a sky seen with anything other then a natural blue sky, unless maybe they want us to think that white lines across the sky are completly natural and normal. This way when we go outside and see white lines in the sky we don't even think twice about it. We won't ask any questions.

The truth is, it's not natural and it sure wasn't in the sky's I grow up in. This is the perfect example of controlled conditioning. Twenty yours ago they couldn't have pulled it off but our attention span has gotten so short we can't even remember what the sky looked like twenty years ago. Well I do remember and I'm telling you it didn't look like this.

You don't have to believe me, all you need to do is a little research and you'll easily find that the conditions do not support what we see in the sky's today. I can't speculate why or what is going on but I have no doubt that it is going on.





new topics
top topics
 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum