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: 19
52
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The footage doesn't show any "spraying." How can you say it speaks for itself?

Do you have any idea of the amount of liquid that would be required to produce even a very, very small cloud? The contrails you see in the air that stretch for miles would require 100x more liquid than any known aircraft can possibly carry, let alone disperse.


Well the "normal contrails" that the planes make sometimes are kind of clouds in a contrail shape.
Are you telling me that it is impossible for a plane to create this contrail shaped cloud ?

The airplanes do not carry the moist that is needed for the contrail shaped cloud to form, it is in the air already.




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

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



Seriously?.....photo-shopped? Is that like the stand by swamp gas explanation?
Major fail my friend


Pay no mind. People like this are like Obama voters; he could *hit in their hat and they'd thank him then put an "Obama 2012" sticker on their car. They have one goal in life; "winning" and "being right", regardless of anything else. They are ego-driven and bordering on narcissism.
edit on 14-7-2012 by axslinger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
What a hoot.

Contrails are a very innocent by-product of a combination of speed, leading edges, pressure differentials and atmospheric conditions. The pilots of ww2 era piston engined recon planes were always trying to avoid creating them and being detected. Look at pictures of high level bombers and fighter dogfights from ww2. Look at the wingtips in slow motion footage of modern jet fighters, plenty of contrails there. Im pretty sure ive seen them created by the spoilers of formula 1 cars too.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine
 




So, you are correct- its not rocket science...but it IS contrail science.


There is no 'contrail science.' You've fallen in with a load of make-believe.


So these 10,500 results for "contrail" in the scientific literature, dating back 50+ years are what, exactly?

scholar.google.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Like this, from 1951:

www.dtic.mil...


lV., CONTRAIL PERSISTENCE

The duration of a contrail depends, in estimated order of importance,
on ambient relative humidity, final condensate phase, contrail density
(water or ice content), and atmospheric diffusion characteristics. Quantitative
methods for predicting the persistence of contrails have not been
prescribed owing to the uncertainty in accurately expressing these influential
parameters.

Contrails that remain in the liquid phase will evaporate within seconds
of the aircraft passage, since the relative humidity at upper levels is
generally less than 100 percent, Contrails that freeze under atmospheric
conditions and that are sub-saturated with respect to ice will usually require
a minute or more to disappear depending on degree of sub-saturation,
contrail density, and environmental mixing. Contrails that freeze in an ice
saturated environment will grow and persist for long periods of time (hours);
atmospheric wind shear and turbulence will gradually diffuse the trail.


See that? "hours". And it's not just one obscure paper that says this. ALL OF THEM DO. They all have the same contrail science. For the last 60 years.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




So these 10,500 results for "contrail" in the scientific literature, dating back 50+ years are what, exactly?


Giving me a link to 10,500 search results is not a sound bite, which is what I requested. Also, you are not Thorazine. Nonetheless: governments and their myriad contractors are now able to systematically, with grid-like precision, obscure the sky.

There is nothing accidental about an outrageously persistent contrail. It is the result of long years of research and design and continuing product monitoring and testing.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Human_Alien



The airplanes do not carry the moist that is needed for the contrail shaped cloud to form, it is in the air already.


Tell me. Were every one of you on jury duty or something during sixth grade chemistry. Does anyone here know what water and water vapor or "moist" is made of?What do you people think jet fuel is made of? What chemical comprises 20% of the atmosphere? I really don't expect ATSers to understand qualitative analysis using x-ray crystallography but the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of the sciences here is appalling.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

3 words will suffice
the manhattan project
look it up



Excellent example of a project that can be hidden for a SHORT while with a small footprint of who is involved. Now compare that to global logistics of a chemtrail project and we can see there is no way that can be accomplished without everyone actually knowing about it, AND a large group knowingly involved in making it happen.

Think in on the scale of if they decided to keep the whole Apollo project totally secret then increase the difficultly by many magnitudes for what you all suggest with chemical spraying.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 


Indeed - this is a good illustration for them tho:




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 


There is nothing accidental about an outrageously persistent contrail. It is the result of long years of research and design and continuing product monitoring and testing.


Into what exactly?

How do you know this, what are your sources?

PS - as a hint you are wrong and right, in that order, and I know the answer and will provide you with the evidence I have - just interested to see if it is the same as you have.
edit on 14-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And a big fat star for you, Gaul, for heeding the OP's bugle call which was:



This is not a debatable topic anymore.


And on to your query...



How do you know this, what are your sources?


All open source, publicly available, not classified or de-classified, from, primarily, the Navy. The information readily, if obscurely, available to the obsessive and persistent researcher.

And, as a cautionary note...a public forum, for entertainment, is not a place to be divulging anything not publicly available unless the hatches are battened and no cannons are loose. And check them twice - take a lesson from Assange.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 




So these 10,500 results for "contrail" in the scientific literature, dating back 50+ years are what, exactly?


Giving me a link to 10,500 search results is not a sound bite, which is what I requested. Also, you are not Thorazine. Nonetheless: governments and their myriad contractors are now able to systematically, with grid-like precision, obscure the sky.

There is nothing accidental about an outrageously persistent contrail. It is the result of long years of research and design and continuing product monitoring and testing.


I dont think anyone has argued that the government wouldnt be capable of obscuring the sky. The argument was that contrails have been studied for many years, and regardless of what planet you are from or what pillow you hide your head under, it is the undeniable truth.

And you're right, a persistent contrail is not accidental. The pilots ARE purposely flying a plane, so if the weather conditions permit, its going to be there. Not really accidental at all, by definition.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And a big fat star for you, Gaul, for heeding the OP's bugle call which was:



This is not a debatable topic anymore.


And on to your query...



How do you know this, what are your sources?


All open source, publicly available, not classified or de-classified, from, primarily, the Navy. The information readily, if obscurely, available to the obsessive and persistent researcher.

And, as a cautionary note...a public forum, for entertainment, is not a place to be divulging anything not publicly available unless the hatches are battened and no cannons are loose. And check them twice - take a lesson from Assange.


Oh, and if you can point out these publicly available and unclassified documents that are primarily from the Navy that support your argument, I'd love to read them. As I've stated before, my job is to help babysit their computer network, so it might be a bit more interesting to me than some.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And a big fat star for you, Gaul, for heeding the OP's bugle call which was:



This is not a debatable topic anymore.


And on to your query...



How do you know this, what are your sources?


All open source, publicly available, not classified or de-classified, from, primarily, the Navy. The information readily, if obscurely, available to the obsessive and persistent researcher.
\

So what are they??


At least Uncinus did give a link...where is yours??


And, as a cautionary note...a public forum, for entertainment, is not a place to be divulging anything not publicly available unless the hatches are battened and no cannons are loose. And check them twice - take a lesson from Assange.


My info is public & readily available, not limited to any armed force, and not secret, so I have no problem with it.....



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

And you're right, a persistent contrail is not accidental. The pilots ARE purposely flying a plane, so if the weather conditions permit, its going to be there. Not really accidental at all, by definition.


Have to disagree with that sorry - flying the aircraft is deliberate...but making the contrail is completely incidental and accidental - it only depends on atmospheric conditions



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 




Oh, and if you can point out these publicly available and unclassified documents that are primarily from the Navy that support your argument, I'd love to read them. As I've stated before, my job is to help babysit their computer network, so it might be a bit more interesting to me than some.


Your interests, compadre, are not mine. But since we are sharing: I enjoy tree-hugging, saving whales and lobbying for the Prebbles Meadow Jumping Mouse.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 




Alex Jones,really?

Please tell me that you aren't believing anything this perveyor of crap slinging is saying are you?

Here is a little video for you...



Everything he says in this video is a total lack of knowledge and common sense, but if you want to believe him all I can say is good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter
 




Oh, and if you can point out these publicly available and unclassified documents that are primarily from the Navy that support your argument, I'd love to read them. As I've stated before, my job is to help babysit their computer network, so it might be a bit more interesting to me than some.


Your interests, compadre, are not mine.


So yet another case of a chemmie sounding off about having some evidence and then point blamnk refusing to share it.

Why are you hiding the evidence??



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Why are you hiding the evidence??


Look up, my feathered friend. Or...if it's too difficult to move away from the monitor, review the OP.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The footage doesn't show any "spraying." How can you say it speaks for itself?

Do you have any idea of the amount of liquid that would be required to produce even a very, very small cloud? The contrails you see in the air that stretch for miles would require 100x more liquid than any known aircraft can possibly carry, let alone disperse.


Well the "normal contrails" that the planes make sometimes are kind of clouds in a contrail shape.
Are you telling me that it is impossible for a plane to create this contrail shaped cloud ?

The airplanes do not carry the moist that is needed for the contrail shaped cloud to form, it is in the air already.


Did you read through and see the rest of my posts? I'm saying exactly the same as you, they are contrails made from the moisture already in the air, and anything other than that explanation is just flat impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join