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 Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

page: 15
52
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23

...never leaving a Trail more than about 5x the apparent length of the plane.

I noticed the definite change around 95-96, i'm shocked more don't remember what contrails looked like before. I don't know what they're for, but I know they're not the same as the contrails we had for decades.


I have no doubt that is, in fact, what you remember. Is the human memory infallible?

What about others who have different memories?

What about other evidence such as decades of scientific research and decades of historical evidence that suggest your memory may not be an absolute?

What do you make of these photos dating back decades that contradict your memory?

contrailscience.com...

metabunk.org...




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
Those are just innocent contrails.
If not, it's definitely photoshopped.
The music = really bad.


You're acting dumb
Stop playing stupid

"Born again chemtrail debunker"

You know the truth. Dont hide from it.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





Those are NEVER the long white lines in the sky.

This is where this argument gets so frustrating. Chemicals are often dispersed in the atmosphere for a variety of reasons, and this is common knowledge, but they are NEVER used at those high altitudes, and they could never create those long white lines.

There are chemicals in the air, there just aren't any chemtrails.


You using words like "NEVER" shows me you do not have an open mind about this topic. But, take a look at this Geoengineering cost analysis report

On page 9


Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations
o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year
 Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations
o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year
 Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations
o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year



On page 23 and 26 you will notice diagrams of a proposed method for implementing disbursal of these chemicals. In the rest of the report you will notice the amount of air planes needed and the size of the payloads. Your theory that they would need massive amounts of liquid and planes is way off base.

This report shows that this is a very long term plan. About 50 - 70 years. The most cost effective method is using a fleet of dedicated aircraft to disburse the material. 747 jets are best suited to deliver a cost effective payload at the intended altitudes.

On page 31


4.2.4 Thrust Augmentation via Sulfuric Acid Injection

In the case of the present system, a significant quantity of sulfuric acid will be stored on
the aircraft and ejected into the atmosphere during flight. This liquid could be injected
into the engine to provide additional thrust at high altitudes to combat thrust lapse. As
discussed in the previous section elevated sulfur content is detrimental to engine component life, and consequently traditional liquid injection techniques (compressor inlet
injection) would not be appropriate for this system. However, some thrust augmentation
may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner
similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the turbine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.


Below are some possible techniques that can be used for current Geoengineering tests and implementation.
By using theses proposed techniques we can see that the chemical components of jet emissions can remain the same but the levels are changed to specifically accomplish the purpose of Geoengineering.

Aerosol Discussion


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

Option 2: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 3: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using High Altitude Jet Aircraft

Option 4: Direct Injection of Ammonium Sulfate Aerosol Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio


How do you suppose injecting sulfuric acid into jet exhaust would look? I think it would look exactly like a persistent contrail.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorazine

Originally posted by dogstar23

...never leaving a Trail more than about 5x the apparent length of the plane.

I noticed the definite change around 95-96, i'm shocked more don't remember what contrails looked like before. I don't know what they're for, but I know they're not the same as the contrails we had for decades.


I have no doubt that is, in fact, what you remember. Is the human memory infallible?

What about others who have different memories?

What about other evidence such as decades of scientific research and decades of historical evidence that suggest your memory may not be an absolute?

What do you make of these photos dating back decades that contradict your memory?

contrailscience.com...

metabunk.org...


This is another common tactic used. The problem is that these memories come from specific areas and locations where these persistent contrails did not exist at that time. The types of contrails are now often being seen in areas that rarely, if ever, had them before.

Yes, persistent contrails may have existed in the past. But they did not exist in the areas we see them today. People's memories are correct and the evidence you provide to imply their memories are wrong is very misleading.

You being another new member to chime in with those websites is again very suspicious.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





There is no conceivable way to create a tornado or a hurricane.


You maybe wrong.

What happens when hot and cold weather meets?

Have you ever looked into HAARP ?
www.abbaswatchman.com...

GWEN Ground Wave Emergency Network, look it up.
edit on 14-7-2012 by fireyaguns because: poor spelling



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 



AND this is how is supposed to look like early challenger space shuttle mission see any difference


first question - which area of the world is that ? a cherrypicked pic of an area that has very low / zero levels of air-traffic is meaningless

second question - what is your response to this :

external image link

the challenger shuttle just after launch - persistant contrail can be seen in the background



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 




Well I'm no expert but in my opinion that looks like a very bad photoshop job if I ever saw one.

The edge of that shuttle exhaust looks cut and pasted into the picture.

We also have no way of knowing how long it took that contrail to dissipate.

Photo don't prove anything on either side of this argument. There's no way to tell without full length recorded video of how long these "persistent contrails" lasted.

A series of photos does do a better job. If we can see the way these "contrails" expand and spread out over the sky.

One of the proposed methods of Geoengineering even makes chemical analysis difficult to detect the difference. Because all they have to do is adjust the air / fuel ratio which will increase the soot content in the exhaust.


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

Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio


ETA:

So, by these techniques, we can see that this would indeed be "normal contrails" and "chemtrails" at the same time. The distinction is that these are being intentionally created for studies in Geoengineering.

Normal contrails will not persist in the same ways as chemtrails. Normal persistent contrails were a rare occurrence and need very specific weather conditions. By increasing the sulfur content in the fuel or by injection of chemicals into the exhaust. The ability to create persistent contrails in conditions where it should not occur is accomplished.



edit on 7/14/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I think that the POSTER here has done a great service -- because NOW I KNOW what people are talking about when they talk about Chemtrails -- it's because they still don't 100% understand CONTRAILS.

Yup -- that's right. That entire video was consistent with Contrail formation. It's compressed, hot gas that expands a bit behind the plane, and then cold air rushes in and suddenly freezes moisture because of the expansion of air.

When you are seeing those "intermittent" bursts -- that's the plane flying across layers of moisture. It isn't thick enough to occlude visibility like a vapor - but it's moisture. So the plane shows no "mist" when the air is dry and suddenly "spurts" at pockets.

>> Sometimes the Contrail forms right behind the jet engine, and sometimes some bit behind the plane -- it just depends on how much expansion the jet air needs to have before it forms that mist.

If anyone wants to truly prove chemical spraying, they'll have to take a video camera and some science witnesses to break into a fully loaded plane. Then track it and have some reputable people do a before and after air composition study.

>> If it's really going on -- it's going to be REALLY TOUGH to prove. But nothing is going to be proved showing videos of contrail formation ( of course some of those were rockets -- and in that case, there might be fuel bursts going on to moderate the speed).



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I am brand new to this site, this topic made me want to join. I very much agree with the people that say chemtrails are real. I worked near the Smoky Mtns. Natl, Park (many times bordering it) and worked outside all of the time. At any given time I could count 12 to 15 chemtrails in the sky. It was usually around 45 or 50. I'd usually stop counting at 50. They were in a grid-like pattern and would not dissipate, just spread and create a haze. I know all about them, or as much as anyone else, I assume. None of these planes were above 20,000 ft. as I would also notice ones that were. Their trails would spread and disappear. What I can't understand is that, with the normal wind direction, they were almost always settling on my little town and in the Park itself. Why would they geoengineer the National Park? Or should I ask why not. I can avow that I am not a plant or agent of anything other than truth as it has no agenda. Sorry if this is too long, I'm new and not familiar with protocol.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That is only one patent number - there are many and many for you to choose from but I note you only chose one. The one you chose was as a result of you reading my post - you should post more about all the other patents - there are many - I know because I have looked. You should try looking at all the patents and researching them all it would make you look as though you are interested in learning and not just out to destroy the singular posts of people who enjoy the participation of learning through discussion on this thread.



Much Peace...



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Its not purposeful on and off of exhaust, it is pockets of moisture. Have you ever flown? Clouds are on and off also. I've already posted this several times, I'm not going to give the links again, but just look at the wiki on clouds, do a little simple math, and see if there is any known aircraft that could carry enough mass to create one small cloud. For the record, there isn't. One small little puffy cumulus cloud weighs more than any airplane could carry and spray.

And, any surface on an aircraft can create enough compression of air to make a contrail, it isn't always the engine, even though they are the most likely. Sometimes it is where the wing meets the fuselage, or sometimes it is at the wingtip, or the stabilizer tip. It is all about the vortexes around the plane. During a turn it is often the wider wingtip.


in fact,,,, basd on where the cars are,, humidity, grains per pound etc ,,,,,,,,,,,, in drag racing,,,, you can see these "trails" come off the back wing of top fuel drag cars,,,,,,,,,,,, oh wait ,,,, they're spraying all the fans with chemtrails at drag races



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
i do have one question,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if this is true,,,,,, and we have weather mods etc

why the hell aren't planes spraying 24/7 to save the corn crop,,,,,,,,, why not seed some rain in the midwest, southwest, texas,, the east where crops are drying up

what the hell are they waiting for????



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Point is, you cannot test for a chemical that could degrade quickly as it's no longer there, and when testing for something it really helps to have a clue what chemical we are testing for.

You cannot just take an air sample, find a few chemicals, and claim definitively that said chemicals in the test were from X location arbitrarily. Especially if we don't even know what chemical we are looking for in the first place.

There are a lot of problems here that complicate this "evidence finding mission" greatly. And sadly, it leaves us where we started, not really knowing much.



Why can't you test for a chemical that degrades quickly? There is as I said, equipment that runs 24/7 / 365, in water and testing the air. There are samples gathered every day in most cities. If it dissipates in 15 hours it would absolutely be found. It would be found if it faded in a single hour.

And you are mistaken - you don't understand how samples are taken. The samples are broken down and ALL chemicals, trace metals, etc. are discovered. They don't just look for a few specific chemicals. There are not a lot of problems - it is in fact, extremely thorough. Because they have to be.

For example, here is a snippet from a previous post - this is the sort of thing they measure. I pulled this from a validation report. We had tons of these suckers.

Trace metals:

Arsenic - Barium - Cadmium - Chromium - Chromium - Lead - Selenium - Silver

Volatiles and semi-volatiles by GC/MS:

Trichlorobenzene - Dichlorobenzene - Trichlorophenol - Dichlorophenol - Dimethylphenol - Dinitrophenol - Dinitrotoluene - Chloronaphthalene - Chlorophenol - Methylnaphthalene - Methylphenol - Nitroaniline - Nitrophenol - Dichlorobenzidine - Nitroaniline - Dinitro-2-methylphenol - Bromophenyl phenyl ether... There are over 100 more semivolatiles on this single soil sample actually.

They don't just look for a few chemicals. They take a sample, and using expensive equipment, they discover ALL chemicals, metals, and everything else in every sample. Nothing is left unidentified. I supported equipment that cost over a million bucks a pop. They'd stick a sample in, and it would run often for over 2 days to analyze it. There is no guesswork about it. You act as if it is an imprecise science. It isn't. It is incredibly precise. And we were just running it to have something to run the #'s against the lab results! Two labs and sometimes three labs were all mailed samples from the same site. It was the only way to guarantee the results were accurate. Why? Because the EPA also uses extensive tests. And if a company was non-compliant, they could end up paying hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in fines. That is why we and the labs must be very accurate.

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE that supposed planes spray a 'grid' over a city so thick that it leave a fog, as is often reported by chemtrail folks, and it NOT show up these samples. It's just impossible. No one can address that, except to make vague claims like you did, which are completely false. I'd recommend reading up on sampling, and see exactly what is done, and how it's done. I realize many people don't want to - they would rather just believe in the chemspraying boogieman as it were. But the facts are out there for those who want the actual truth of the matter.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by shortywarn
 


You can only seed clouds if you have clouds to seed.

is see:

denver.cbslocal.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 





There is NO WAY POSSIBLE that supposed planes spray a 'grid' over a city so thick that it leave a fog, as is often reported by chemtrail folks, and it NOT show up these samples. It's just impossible. No one can address that, except to make vague claims like you did, which are completely false. I'd recommend reading up on sampling, and see exactly what is done, and how it's done. I realize many people don't want to - they would rather just believe in the chemspraying boogieman as it were. But the facts are out there for those who want the actual truth of the matter.



Actually you're quite wrong. Air quality tests are not conducted that often. Certainly no where near 24/7 as you suggest. I'm sure you have heard of acid rain right? Well the materials like sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate are commonly found.and their levels have been increasing.

The chemicals are also similar to those of car exhaust and industrial smokestacks. I've done over 2 years of research and maybe you should research Geoengineering. The difference with the jet exhaust is that it gets disbursed and diluted and the source becomes untraceable. The detected increase in the levels of these chemicals are often blamed on China and their industries and other known polluters of the environment. Such as aluminum production facilities.

These are Geoengineering experiments. Not necessarily full scale implementation. The plan has been a long term gradual increase and close study scrutinization of the after effects. There have been many speculated negative results of these experiments. Such as decreased rainfall in certain areas. Which we are indeed seeing occur in alarming ways.

Will you please provide links and quotes from your sources that you say you have researched and studied. I prefer not to rely on just your opinion. Where is this 24/7 air sampling taking place? Where are the clean water tests?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortywarn
i do have one question,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if this is true,,,,,, and we have weather mods etc

why the hell aren't planes spraying 24/7 to save the corn crop,,,,,,,,, why not seed some rain in the midwest, southwest, texas,, the east where crops are drying up

what the hell are they waiting for????


Well this involves another subject of conspiracy theories. That is a long term plan of depopulation. TPTB are not concerned with feeding the masses. The World already produces enough food to feed the Earth's population. Yet 1 in 7 people on this planet still go hungry. Causing food shortages like corn also effects the ethanol production and allows the price of oil to go up. Keeping people in greater debt by controlling the cost of living.

Geoengineering is not the same as cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is intended to cause rain clouds to release their moisture over an intended area. But Geoengineering is intended to make clouds that will reflect sunlight and hopefully have a cooling effect on the overall climate budget. By increasing the Earth's Albedo through the use of man-made clouds. Jet contrail cirrus clouds are very different than rain clouds. They draw moisture from the air but have no where near enough moisture to cause it to rain.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


ok - at a given temp / pressure [ you choose ] - how much water [ mass / vol ] can a given mass / vol of a hydroscopic chemical [ you choose the one you belioeve is sutible to be sprayed ] absorbe ?


I'm not a chemist.

How about a few demonstrations of some theories behind cloud formation and cloud whitening

Introduction to Aerosols


Hygroscopic demonstration



Hygroscopic demonstration


Making clouds


A method for cloud whitening by chemical reactions


www.youtube.com...

When a solution of Barium chloride is poored into a solution of sodium sulfate a white precipitate of Barium sulfate is formed.



More info on Geoengineering and man-made clouds
Bush - Gorbachev Artificial Cloud Institute


01 September 2009The Royal Society has published the findings of a major study into geoengineering the climate. The study, chaired by Professor John Shepherd FRS, was researched and written over a period of twelve months by twelve leading academics representing science, economics, law and social science.

edit on 7/14/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

The 3rd "spray" is seen at the exit of the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit), which is a turbine which can be used to provide power to the plane for some applications (e.g. air con in cabin). It can be used during flight as well.
Most obviously (to me), these 3rd "sprays" are exhaust from the APU.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by Phage
 


That is only one patent number - there are many and many for you to choose from but I note you only chose one. The one you chose was as a result of you reading my post - you should post more about all the other patents - there are many - I know because I have looked. You should try looking at all the patents and researching them all it would make you look as though you are interested in learning and not just out to destroy the singular posts of people who enjoy the participation of learning through discussion on this thread.
.


I had a look at several dozen of the so-called chemtrail patents in this post/thread

Are any of the ones you consider significant included?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
Normal contrails will not persist in the same ways as chemtrails.

Y'know, I hear that a lot around here.
Could you please explain why they won't?
I mean, I'm no scientist (nor do I play one on tv), but I would think any particulate matter in the wind at high altitude would behave about the same. Why would water vapor disperse but "chemical" vapor not?




top topics



 
52
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join