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
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Yes I agree there is a conspiracy here - but it seems to me you are the one who is part of it through your disinformation campaign, and I think the public should be made aware of your tactics!
You too?! And here I thought we were pals!
Silver is a heavy metal. Perhaps you've heard of heavy metals? They're toxic to human beings. Nanosized silver is on the rise. It's used in cloud seeding too. I did a thread on it. Nanosized toxicity levels are rated the same as bulk even though they are completely different. They're rated the same as bulk because there have been very few tests with nano. Here's an article I know you'll enjoy:
Nanosilver in consumer products: No silver lining for fish
Smaller than a virus and used in more than 200 consumer products, silver nanoparticles can kill and mutate fish embryos, new research shows.
“Some of the fish became extremely distorted, almost making a number nine or a comma instead of a linear fish,” he said.
The nanosilver caused malformations in their eyes, swim bladders and tails, and some developed fluid around the heart that causes congestive heart failure, according to the study, which was published in August in the nanotechnology journal Small.
Raising concerns about potential harm to human health, other recent research has shown that some metal nanoparticles can damage DNA or kill cells. One new study found that nanoscale particles can cross into the womb through the placenta.
“We have no means of detecting nanosilver in the environment once it is released, even if concentrations rise to levels that are toxic to aquatic ecosystems,” Luoma said in a statement when the report, “Nanoscale Silver: No Silver Lining?” was released last year.
So what you're saying is that as long as we're washing them down the drain, what's a little extra coming from the sky? It's just rain - right? That's the idea, to get it to rain. To get it to rain on everything, right?
My point:; but first, your point:
Why is it you are so concerned about a relatively miniscule amount of a pollutant that is, at worst, an irritant, but not with stuff that is actually dangerous?
Can you figure it out yet?
Can you figure out how much of the pollution you are so worried about at 30000feet is being released at ground level, you know where the air you actually breath is?
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Cloud seeding is not done at 30,000 feet. There is no evidence that chemtrails are sprayed at 30,000 feet either.
Though I am still disappointed that you are in favour of crap being sprayed into the air. I thought you were anti pollution.
So how does your statement that you are not in favour of spraying anything into the atmosphere fit in with you posting enthusiastically that fine dust particles should be used to get rid of contrails?
The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible
Can you prove that persistsant trails are rare, cos that sounds like nonsense to me?
The nature of the contrails was such that they required certain atmospheric conditions to form. Thus, they were principally affected by altitude...We in B-24s typically bombed from about 22,000 feet while the B-17s, which could fly higher, bombed from around 27,000, particularly at tough targets where higher was better in an effort to avoid the flak as much as possible...My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose. The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys. (Ronadl D. Spencer - 467th Bomb Group)
Everybody agrees they're bad - whether chemtrail or contrail. Why go on with it? Just get rid of them.
Today, 2012, and since the late 1990's, sky grids are desireable by TBTB and minute particles are used to create chemtrails and to make sure that they persist. So that right there says that these are two different things. Today's chemtrail is not a contrail like the contrail of yesterday.
It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.
Flying a Spitfire at Boscombe Down, Longbottom had already completed four flights to 40,000 feet and gathered some data on contrail formation. Although flight operations above 35,000 feet were rare in February 1941, Dobson believed that regular test flights to 40,000 feet were essential, since operational ceilings were steadily increasing.
Finally, Dobson concluded that it was already possible “to issue forecasts of the danger of trail formation whenever cirrus was expected and the temperature was below, say, -53 degrees Celsius at the height of the cirrus.” However, such forecasts “would not be entirely reliable since the humidity might be high even when no cirrus was present.”
It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids.
The IP was not crossed on course because of interference from dense, persistent contrails and thick ground haze. The run Started as a PFF run, but about two minutes before the BRL, the lead bombardier succeeded in picking up the MPI at intervals before the BRL. Bombing by the lead squadron was a combination PFF/Visual assist.
The high squadron made three runs. Haze, smoke and Contrails interfered on the first and second runs. On the third run, the squadron made a PFFIVisual assist run and released bombs successfully.
MISSION NO. 233
DRESDEN, GERMANY
17 APRIL, 1945
Yes that's the quote, which you posted in support of your own argument that they should get rid rid of contrails because they easily can. You didn't say ANY of what you wrote above, you simply wrote
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Persistent contrails are rare; chemtrails are everyday.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.
My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Persistent contrails are rare. The two are not the same thing; never were the same thing except in the bunk science of outrageously persistent contrails.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
This is why you all run into trouble. Because you interchange yourselves like clones and reply to replies meant for others who were actually involved in and following the line of thought. Now you create imaginary scenarios based on things taken out of context said in another thread. Further, you expect someone to respond to your nonsense which springs from your belief, at the outset, in a bunk theory.
If you want to have a rational discussion - I'm all ears. But I won't put up with semantics, twisting and trickery from your bunk science side in order to prove something that you all can't prove, never have proven, because it doesn't exist.
As far as the quote you put in - it supports my argument, my side, which is, chemtrails are everyday. Persistent contrails are rare. The two are not the same thing; never were the same thing except in the bunk science of outrageously persistent contrails.
This is why you all run into trouble. Because you interchange yourselves like clones and reply to replies meant for others who were actually involved in and following the line of thought.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Exhaust Contrails
The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible
So that was a quote from what I think another poster said was from a 1965 original article. It's not the fact of adding dust to the exhaust in the event of a persistent contrail that is startling. What's startling about this is that the exact opposite is true today. Today, smaller particles are desireable for chemtrails because they don't fall out and evaporate or rain out. This means that they stay and wind up creating fake cirrus. So right here you can see that there are two different things being talked about. In 1965, it was the rare persistent contrail that they were trying to avoid. They did this by adding minute particles to the exhaust and that effectively eliminated the contrail.
Today, 2012, and since the late 1990's, sky grids are desireable by TBTB and minute particles are used to create chemtrails and to make sure that they persist.
So that right there says that these are two different things. Today's chemtrail is not a contrail like the contrail of yesterday.
It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.
WWII Contrails
The nature of the contrails was such that they required certain atmospheric conditions to form. Thus, they were principally affected by altitude...We in B-24s typically bombed from about 22,000 feet while the B-17s, which could fly higher, bombed from around 27,000, particularly at tough targets where higher was better in an effort to avoid the flak as much as possible...My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose. The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys. (Ronadl D. Spencer - 467th Bomb Group)
Persistent contrails are everyday...somewhere conditions are right for contrails to persist and spread- everyday.
What you do got is a con. Enough to fool some of the people some of the time. (Abe Lincoln) But only as long as they don't look up.
So what your saying you think that people should not reply to you if the post was meant for someone else, correct?