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.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
To sum: what you have stated are excuses. The solutions are simple and well known. Life would be better and the militaries would no longer have to fend off chemtrail claims.
Originally posted by captainpudding
Originally posted by luxordelphi
To sum: what you have stated are excuses. The solutions are simple and well known. Life would be better and the militaries would no longer have to fend off chemtrail claims.
Not even remotely true. Chemtrail supporters don't believe in reality or science so taking the time and money to design planes to not create contrails will just cause the chemtrail hoaxers to start asking what new, secret, invisible chemical they're being sprayed with.
Those spraying chemtrails would like nothing more than for you to believe that short, non-persistent plumes coming out of jets are harmless contrails.
If they convince you of this, then, when upgrades in equipment allow them to spray chemtrails which produce only short, non-persistent plumes, you will be convinced that they are perfectly harmless.
These upgrades in equipment are already occurring. Non-persistent chemtrails are now appearing all over the world.
But that's not the end of the story. Now, people in many areas are reporting no visible chemtrails at all. Have they gone away? No. They have only gone high-altitude.
I have personally witnessed this change from:
(1) persistent chemtrails, to
(2) non-persistent chemtrails, to
(3) non-visible (high-altitude) chemtrails,
and because I have a sensitive sense of smell and taste, I have an important story to tell.
Now all you have to do is prove that contrails are toxic.
Also that link you provided is to help push the What in the World are they Spraying video which has been thoroughly debunked here...
And just a little info for you APN is not a legit news source here in Atlanta it is just like any other blog on the internet.
Not even remotely true. Chemtrail supporters don't believe in reality or science so taking the time and money to design planes to not create contrails will just cause the chemtrail hoaxers to start asking what new, secret, invisible chemical they're being sprayed with.
Russ runs GlobalSkywatch.com, a chemtrail promotion site, and also sell a variety of chemtrail cures on herballure.com
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
Russ runs GlobalSkywatch.com, a chemtrail promotion site, and also sell a variety of chemtrail cures on herballure.com
Addressing jet cirrus is difficult without lidar, which the average Joe & Jane don't have access to. The bulk of cirrus, whether natural or jet, is invisible to the naked eye. It obscures the stars and makes them dim but during the day, it really just makes the sky kind of a gray-blue without any perceptible clouds.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Chemtrail investigators and researchers don't agree on much but they do agree that the pop science of outrageously persistent contrails is in opposition to observation.
Really. I'm not sure you're capable of having a serious discussion about outrageously persistent contrails versus chemtrails. That contrails, of any type, or, jet exhaust, for that matter, are toxic, is not disputed. Prove me wrong but, in the meantime, go to the back of the class.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by luxordelphi
Really. I'm not sure you're capable of having a serious discussion about outrageously persistent contrails versus chemtrails. That contrails, of any type, or, jet exhaust, for that matter, are toxic, is not disputed. Prove me wrong but, in the meantime, go to the back of the class.
Indulge me. Where is your evidence that contrails are toxic?
I'm starting to think that you're just a hanger-on, hanging onto Phage's shirt, while he uses sound-bite 'science' in order to give you an opportunity to think you actually understand something.
I've been using sound-bite chat in this thread. It's hard to combat, isn't it?, but the other choice, an actual understanding of the depth of the conspiracy, is not for the social feint of heart.
But Tanner is not talking about sub-visible cirrus. He's talking about the trails behind jets. When there was a time when the weather was not conducive to them forming, then he assumed they were now spraying something invisible.
Pop science? How is hundreds, maybe thousands, of publish peer-reviewed papers considered "pop science".
Is there ANY science that says this persistence is "outrageous"? Can you quote a single paper?
Um...he's right - of course they are toxic - they are engine exhaust, containing large amounts of CO, CO2, NOx, SOx - all such exhaust is toxic - it's not really a matter of discussion.
Of course if you mean JUST contrails and not the associated other combustion products, then as water ice they aer exactly as toxic as any other water ice - you can drown in it you know!
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Pop science? How is hundreds, maybe thousands, of publish peer-reviewed papers considered "pop science".
You just don't get it. An outrageously persistent contrail is a very rare event. An event, that with today's technology, never needs to happen. The hundreds of papers describe chemtrail events. Those events are everyday. That makes for a lot of experiments to catalogue and study. Nationalizing health care in the U.S. will help with these studies as far as health effects that the population experiences from these experiments.
All of the above is pop 'science.' It's for popular consumption. Its' premise has no basis in observation. It uses words that have no meaning in a real world context: persistent contrail. There was a military need to eliminate this rare event, which has been done.
Is there ANY science that says this persistence is "outrageous"? Can you quote a single paper?
You don't think that the pictures that are put up in this forum almost daily showing the sky grids etc. are outrageous? I do. But I'm not going to worry because NASA tells me that I won't really see this unless I'm on the eastern seaboard. So I must be in some kind of other dimension - right? That makes a lot of sense.