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 ruthlesstruth
Originally posted by beerbaron2002
My roommate is the co-pilot on a Boeing 727, he just laughs about people who believe in chemtrails, they are contrails.
So why is it there have been studies, especially in California where they have found high levels of aluminum oxide, barium, and ammonia in the ground where there are high levels of air traffic?
Originally posted by Advancedboy
We must make specific assumptions and then try to do more rersearch into it. I will assume the following-
1. The chemical delivery system for large commercial aircraft is executed via hollowed static wicks.
Originally posted by Advancedboy
We must make specific assumptions and then try to do more rersearch into it. I will assume the following-
1. The chemical delivery system for large commercial aircraft is executed via hollowed static wicks.
2. Commercial jet aircraft pilots are not in the know for most of the part as the delivery system is remotely activated.
3. Septic tank maintenance is used to deliver chemicals inside an aircraft.
4. Private companies hide under cloud seeding programmes while executing chemtrailing as well.
Where would you like to go ????
Originally posted by hololeap
reply to post by Uncinus
I've seen your contrailscience.com and I didn't realize it was you at first. First I want to say that I really appreciate the lengths you have gone to try to educate the public. I saw your debunking of the testing for metals done on sludge water from the film "What in the World Are They Spraying" and I say that their analysis was crap indeed. However, what do you make of the little girl in Hawaii with the high amounts of aluminum in her hair samples? Do you think this just came from another source?
People get most of their aluminum from food, about 8 mg per day (or 8,000 ug, if you want to be sensationalistic) . They can get very high levels from antacids (100-200 mg) or buffered asprin (10-20 mg/tablet)
source: www.atsdr.cdc.gov...
It’s pretty ludicrous pointing out individual tests like this as evidence of spraying. Did they spray the trails JUST ON HER? If there was spraying then EVERYONE would have elevated level.
And why don’t they also leap to the conclusion that contrails contain Antimony, Arsnic, Cadmium, Gadolinium, Lead, Tin and Uranium, as they all had elevated levels?
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...
Aluminum (Al) – Aluminum is elevated in hair only in extreme exposures (and even then is inconsistent), and is unrelated to serum or bone aluminum. Aluminum dietary intake is unrelated to aluminum in hair, even with controlled dietary intake. Aluminum in hair is not a useful biological indicator of exposure
….
If hair analysis is undertaken for comparison of groups, choose element(s) for which the literature supports such an approach, e.g., methylmercury, e.g., NOT aluminum.
And they were not even particularly elevated. 23.1 ug/g, where the “healthy” level was 17.3? Given the huge problem with environmental contamination of aluminum for testing, and the known inconsistency of scalp hair aluminum testing, this is pretty meaningless, even if it did correlate with contrails. Which is doesn’t.
It’s not at all scientific, and it demonstrates nothing.
Oh, and yes it IS natural for a little girl to have high levels of aluminum. The chart shown says the healthy ranges are for adults, and scientists say:
Age. The age of the individual or population tested can affect the results and interpretation of hair analysis. Studies suggest, for example, that alkaline earths and zinc are not excreted as much in early years of life. The opposite is true with aluminum, of which children excrete higher levels than adults (Paschal 1989).
So if 17 is normal for an adult, then 23 sounds quite reasonable for a child.
And Popular Science is owned by the Military industrial complex.
Originally posted by kman420
So you have some kind of proof that they are not hiding chemicals in the contrails??
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by kman420
So you have some kind of proof that they are not hiding chemicals in the contrails??
No I don't. I also have no proof that my neighbors cat is not a robot.
Originally posted by DJW001
please note that there is genuine concern among these scientists as to the environmental impact of contrails. They just don't think that aircraft are spraying morgellons into the atmosphere to appease Jewish bankers.
Originally posted by Advancedboy
reply to post by Uncinus
Try to have a closer look at an oxy torch. Is there a flame coming out right of the tip of the nozzle? No, once the speed of delivery( pressure) is increased so the particles start the burning process farther away.
Once an airplane travels at high altitude of about 8-10 km and the speed is about 850 km/h the speed of air to the surpassing particles creates a huge pressure creating the ejected substance a thin line. The ejected material becomes visibe only when water molecules are bound to it. But it can`t happen simultaneously as the material is dipsersed at high speed, because at such pressure and amount of particles there is not anough moleculae of water to bind such amount of material.
Thus when executing spraying from thin static wicks the trail will appear far behind the airplane. Hell, even the contrail appears far after an airplane, although it has to do with lack of oxygen right behind the exhaust nozzles.
If the airplanes were spraying at lower speeds, say 250 km/h the chemical substance trail would be much closer to the wicks. As these airplanes are filmed from beneath and static wicks are also located near the engines, noone would notice that the actual spraying happens about 1m higher than the engine.
Originally posted by Advancedboy
No, pilots wouldn`t know. And the actual amount of chemicals on each ariplane is not that big, because the amount needed is not that big, because the biggest job is done by water in the air that binds the chemicals.
edit on 08.15.09 by Advancedboy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Advancedboy
reply to post by seabhac-rua
"None of these assumptions are likely at all.
Ask a commercial airline pilot if they would be unaware of tanks containing chemicals onboard their flights, how much do you think these imaginary tanks would weigh when full and as they are being emptied(remotely) would a pilot notice the diference in the handling of the aircraft?
Where are the witnesses working for the 'septic tank maintenence' companies or the private cloud seeding companies? Activities like these do not stay secret for long. "
Source
4.3.7.2 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be
made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing.
Originally posted by Advancedboy
reply to post by seabhac-rua
Let me reiterate the question- how many taxi drivers are aware that their Chrysler cars are built on Mercedes and Mitsubishi platforms and that their seat power modes and all actuators are actually powered by japanese Denso? How many Harley -Davidson hardcore fans actually know that their bikes have japanese Showa forks?
No, pilots wouldn`t know. And the actual amount of chemicals on each ariplane is not that big, because the amount needed is not that big, because the biggest job is done by water in the air that binds the chemicals.
About cloud seeding- it is completely in open , you can check for yourself there are many companies countrywise that execute these projects, they have even stated the times and area of activities.