Chemtrail's, why no lab proof.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Having uploaded numerous pix to ATS with contrails / chemtrails above my house , much to the annoyance of some members
. My question is 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.
Does this still stand , the fact that Ryan Air started gathering air samples during the Icelandic volcano scenario that was grounding aircraft shows air data can be checked.

www.pmeasuring.com...

Why no big world news regarding testing and results.Plenty of small private planes around the world


I know that the trails above my house happen daily and look weird hanging in the sky for hours at a time.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Have you watched G. Edward Griffin documentary, "What in the World are They Spraying?" They take soil and water samples in Shasta County, which is just next door to mine. There's PLENTY of lab evidence presented in that film, and also an investigative report issued by the prestigious research firm, The Belfort Group in Belgium. Links below.

Belfort Group Report

Documentary film: "What in the World are They Spraying"?

edit on 7/4/12 by argentus because: fixed youtube link



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Rockerchic4God , thanks for the link , I am downloading the full 1hour 37 minute film to my desktop as I reply.
I know something is going on up in the sky .

Stay safe.............Droid



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Droidinvoid
 


REGARDING that film....not even a "docu"mentary.....before you invest yourself into it........

.....HEY! Watch some other FICTIONAL movies.......and then.....

.....come to THIS thread, and learn a bit::Are They Spraying Anything?

I HOPE you will read that thread carefully.....it will reveal the many flaws in the film that are not aparrent at first viewing...........
edit on Sat 7 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockerchic4God
Have you watched G. Edward Griffin documentary, "What in the World are They Spraying?" They take soil and water samples in Shasta County, which is just next door to mine. There's PLENTY of lab evidence presented in that film, and also an investigative report issued by the prestigious research firm, The Belfort Group in Belgium. Links below.

Belfort Group Report


The Belfort Group is not a "prestigious research firm", it's just a conspiracy promotion group, like We Are Change, etc.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I agree:


The Belfort Group is not a "prestigious research firm",


Nor can "anything" "sprayed" from miles above our heads affect us........I was just now putting CLOROX tablets into the toilets in my home.....AND?

???I started to sneeze!!!! STRONG sneezes....until I washed my hands.....

........I hope "others" grasp this concept.......please??



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockerchic4God
Have you watched G. Edward Griffin documentary, "What in the World are They Spraying?" They take soil and water samples in Shasta County, which is just next door to mine. There's PLENTY of lab evidence presented in that film,


And none of it actually from chemtrails at all - yet they present it as if it were proof.

Just dishonestly to make money as far as I can see.


and also an investigative report issued by the prestigious research firm, The Belfort Group in Belgium. Links below.


as has been pointed out it is nothing of the sort. Their "report" is not attributed to any author - ie they chose to remain anonymous. Moreover it is full of proof along the lines of "we have satisfied ourselves" - rather than being properly peer reviewed.

It seems to be an attempt to make chemtrail "research" appear scientific and therefore mainstream - clearly it has worked in many cases - but again it is dishonest.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Droidinvoid
 


There are a few examples of lab tests.
fourwinds10.com


ALARMING LOCAL LAB TESTS REVEAL ACCUMULATED CONTAMINATION A Lake Shasta sample from Pit River Arm tributary tested at 4,610,000 ugl (ugl=ppb or parts per billion), over 4610 times the MCL (maximum contaminant level) for aluminum in drinking water for the State of California. A pond in Shasta County in a "filtered location" (forested hilltop away from any highway or industry) tested "0" for aluminum when the pond was constructed and filled. After 18 months' exposure to the atmosphere, the pond tested at 375,000 ugl or 375 times the MCL. Recently, snow pack sample, taken from Ski Bowl on Mt. Shasta, tested at 61,100 ugl, or 61 times the MCL for aluminum in drinking water for the State of California.



JonesReport

KSLA ran the substances through a lab and found high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver.


The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a "hallmark of chemtrails." KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or "more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA." The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were "very unusual," but commented that "proving the source was a whole other matter" in its discussion with KSLA.


KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that "239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969."



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neysa
reply to post by Droidinvoid
 


There are a few examples of lab tests.
fourwinds10.com


ALARMING LOCAL LAB TESTS REVEAL ACCUMULATED CONTAMINATION A Lake Shasta sample from Pit River Arm tributary tested at 4,610,000 ugl (ugl=ppb or parts per billion), over 4610 times the MCL (maximum contaminant level) for aluminum in drinking water for the State of California. A pond in Shasta County in a "filtered location" (forested hilltop away from any highway or industry) tested "0" for aluminum when the pond was constructed and filled. After 18 months' exposure to the atmosphere, the pond tested at 375,000 ugl or 375 times the MCL. Recently, snow pack sample, taken from Ski Bowl on Mt. Shasta, tested at 61,100 ugl, or 61 times the MCL for aluminum in drinking water for the State of California.


They were testing sludge - or the dust that fell into the pond or dirt that was on the surface of the snow - no attempt was made to show how this material was connected to any aerial spraying at all, and in fact the numbers are entirely consistent with the normal and natural aluminium content of soil - Mt Shasta results in WITWATS debunked


The KSLA tests were even more wrong than that!! They combine both measuring sludge AND misreading the results!

You have been had by hucksters. Sorry about that.

edit on 9-4-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Hmmmm....
Have not seen this debunk. I will have to read it before I can reply.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Neysa
 


Fair enuf.

TBH tho' there's very little in the way of chemtrail "evidence" that hasn't been debunked - remembering always that "debunking" means nothing more than removing the "bunk" - ie the obvious fallacies & errors.

Whatever is left after debunking is probably true.

it's just that for chemtrails there's nothing left!



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Neysa
 





Hmmmm....

Have not seen this debunk. I will have to read it before I can reply.


Here is another good place to start...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A lot of good info here to read....



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
And just for the heck of it here is an interesting little video....



Enjoy....



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


And just for the heck of it
lets show the Cancer causing chemicals,
that they admit to releasing into the air,
in what they call contrails.


The gas-phase soots contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).[1] The PAHs in soot are known mutagens [2] and are classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer




wiki.answers.com...
CxHy is the general chemical formula of a hydrocarbon: This is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon.
Alkanes, alkenes, cycloalkanes, alkyne-based compounds and aromatic hydrocarbons (arenes) are different types of hydrocarbons
www.epa.gov... (CO)
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless and toxic gas. Because it is impossible to see, taste or smell the toxic fumes, CO can kill you before you are aware it is in your home. At lower levels of exposure, CO causes mild effects that are often mistaken for the flu. These symptoms include headaches, dizziness, disorientation, nausea and fatigue. The effects of CO exposure can vary greatly from person to person depending on age, overall health and the concentration and length of exposure.
www.epa.gov...
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73%) and other industrial facilities (20%). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and the burning of high sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment. SO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system.
www.epa.gov...
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as "oxides of nitrogen," or "nitrogen oxides (NOx)." Other nitrogen oxides include nitrous acid and nitric acid. While EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard covers this entire group of NOx, NO2 is the component of greatest interest and the indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides. NO2 forms quickly from emissions from cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road equipment. In addition to contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone, and fine particle pollution, NO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system.
en.wikipedia.org...
Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. A water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at ambient conditions, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice, and gaseous state (water vapor or steam). Water also exists in a liquid crystal state near hydrophilic surfaces.[1][2] Under nomenclature used to name chemical compounds, Dihydrogen monoxide is the scientific name for water, though it is almost never used.[

en.wikipedia.org...
Soot ( /ˈsʊt/) is a general term that refers to impure carbon particles resulting from the incomplete combustion of a hydrocarbon. It is more properly restricted to the product of the gas-phase combustion process but is commonly extended to include the residual pyrolyzed fuel particles such as coal, cenospheres, charred wood, petroleum coke, and so on, that may become airborne during pyrolysis and that are more properly identified as cokes or chars.
The gas-phase soots contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).[1] The PAHs in soot are known mutagens [2] and are classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).[3]


edit on 9-4-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Well now since chemtrail believers like to post videos of news weathermen talking about so called chemtrails then your really going to enjoy this little video....Listen carefully to the nice weatherman and see if you can understand what he says....



Did we all get that little bit of knowledge.. Great.....



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

I get it,
there is Cancer causing chemicals,
in Contrails.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Aern't all these released in normal exhaust even when there is no visible trail?

and also by cars and trucks and motorcycles burning hydrocarbons? And by coal and gas burning power plants too?

Why these be worse from/in/due to visible trails of water at 30,000 feet, as opposed to jet exhaust at takeoff, or combustion at ground level?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


So how much do you think is falling to the ground from 35000 ft?

Have you ever seen a contrail that makes it to the ground?

Enjoy....




posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So are you claiming that the industry,
also drives to work, and its customers,
and is hook up to the power grid?

And may be more polluting then any other industry,
because it relies on all others and their forms of pollution?

Can you proof no coal is used in power for the airline industry?

Can you prove no vehicle transportation is used to transfer goods and customers to Airports?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Aern't all these released in normal exhaust even when there is no visible trail?


And even worse if your vehicle has an emission problem or even burns oil, that smoke really sucks.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join