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.

 

New Chemtrail vids: Close-ups of full wing spraying

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


It's not even worth it with the avid deniers. Their minds are made up already.


The same may be said of he avid believers too.




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Some of us are ppen to be persuaded, given convincing evidence. Some of us know we are right and everyone else must be wrong unless they agree with us, regardless of the evidence. Which are you?

Show us evidence of 'contrails' which according to well know laws of meteorology and aerodynamics cannot be contrails, explain why cannot be contrails and why they are nonetheless visible (and assuming they are not other obvious things like crop spraying!) in a polite and restrained manner, and we may be persuaded.

The ball is in your court. So far, everyone has refused to play ......

edit on 31-7-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I'm just not convinced by photos taken six miles away from the subject....show me some discernible hardware.

And don't you think that world wide spraying would affect everyone....including "them"?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


It's not even worth it with the avid deniers. Their minds are made up already.


My mind is made up by evidence - where there is no evidence I ask for it - when none can be supplied I call what is beign proposed an "assertion" - when I am told that it is the unarguable truth despite the lack of evidence then I conclude that it is a myth or a religion - because only myths and religions require you to believe without any evidence at all.

You are perfectly free to believe stuff for which there is no evidence if you want - that is your choice.

Mine is to not believe that which cannot be supported.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Those two lines look like they would swing about in the wind incredibly, and still I believe if they could possibly align the nozzle would push away such a lightweight line.

Color me incredibly skeptical due to the physics, aerodynamics and speeds/weights involved.


Perhaps you should think about those aspects a little more.

The drogue is a drag-inducing design that creates stability - remember these a/c are flying at a few hundred miles per hour - so there is an enormous force created that creates tension in the line. A technical discussion of how much drag the drogue and line creates can be seen in this NASA document.

And in addition to the drag load it is full of pressurised fuel at 35-55 psi - see this pod cutaway and description, providing further stiffness.

I don't have the actual weight specification of air refueling hoses, but you can buy MIL-H-4495D which covers inflight refueling hoses for US$25 if you are eager to learn them - but I cannot see them as being particularly light either. They will be multi-layer, quite thick walled to withstand both the internal pressure and the tension induced in them.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by Infi8nity
 


Thanks for your input!

Ya, I love all these other explanations, yet I was around in the 70's, 80's, and for then and part of the 90's contrails NEVER looked like they do today. They used to dissipate after several minutes and never hang around for hours.


I was around in the 60's, and they hung around for hours then, and in the 70's, and in teh 80's, and in the 90's, and even in eth 1940's well befoer I was born.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Nah, you're a magnet for truthers. People who don't like to see others deceived and mislead


At least I truly believe what I am saying about chemtrails, and if I'm undecided on other topics I will state that clearly.

Did you know one of the few cardinal sins, for which your soul can suffer in eternity, is to deny mankind the right to thrive, which includes keeping sacred/important knowledge hidden?

I would hate to put that to the test!

If you don't believe me you can read it in Whitely Strieber's book "The Master of the Key", his strange visitor relays this little nugget to him, along with many others. It is not to late for those who have committed this greatest sin to change while they still inhabit their current physical shell...........but at some time it becomes too late..........at least that is the theory........which, again, I would hate to test.


Sacred knowledge? Excuse me for one moment while i have a HUGE laugh at your expense.. And mods pardon me because I really have to get this out now..

You and your linked sites are hardly vessels of sacred knowledge, for 2 pages you denied that a drogue and boom system existed, when it was finally shown to you, the first thing out of your mouth was "IT'S PHOTOSHOPPED" (although I could have done a much better Drogue and plane if i had the time in LW but I digress) But no of course... Biblio Techa Pleyades is the end all be all of knowledge even though 90% of the stuff they have up has been proven hoax so many times it's not funny. You in other threads post nonsense grafted from sites run by people who can't even logically think their way out of a paper bag, and then you boast about how MOONS ARE AROUND PLANET X because you found someone that pointed their camera right at the sun and through a red filter and it created distortions.. hmmmm.

Sacred Knowledge? Hardly.... you are the worst kind of huckster, and if you aren't at home getting your jollies out of this, and actually think it serious... man... I hate to think about the world if it were in your hands...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
Sacred Knowledge? Hardly.... you are the worst kind of huckster, and if you aren't at home getting your jollies out of this, and actually think it serious... man... I hate to think about the world if it were in your hands...


The OP seems more naive than anything else. 'Chemtrail' type experiments will happen, most likely have happened, and it is a serious topic. If ever a decision is taken to operate to spray chemicals, it will never be about 'them and us' it will be a grandiose decision by a small number of people who think they know the best thing to do, and they could ultimately be right or horribly wrong and that is about as far as it goes that we know of. An ordinary video taken from ground level means zilch.
edit on 31-7-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 





Ya, I love all these other explanations, yet I was around in the 70's, 80's, and for then and part of the 90's contrails NEVER looked like they do today. They used to dissipate after several minutes and never hang around for hours.


And I was around in the 60's.....and yes they did!

I'm afraid you show a startling lack of basic high school science education


Do you genuinely not understand how and why a contrail can form and persist?

edit on 31/7/2012 by Argyll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I found the s pecification for aerial refueling hose - unfiortunately it does not giive actual weight of hte hose, as that will vary with the diameter, but it does give design tensile stregth - which is 1500 lbs for hoses 2" id or smaler, and 2000 lb for larger diameters, with a test of 1.5 times that required to show no deformation.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


OP: enjoyed your thread. It's funny that photos, whistleblowers, meteorologists, concerned scientists & researchers & governments and insider confessions: all are just swept under the rug by chemtrail deniers.

Chemtrails are a big operation and, I'm sure, that the story told to get the operation going was a good one. Protection from UV, as you mentioned in your OP, makes a lot of sense. It would be nice to know why that would be needed but our leaders seem to have forgotten their role. Perhaps something has frightened them and they have not been thinking clearly for a decade or two. I guess we could give them that.

The sky is constantly obscured. The substances used to obscure it are making people ill. The obscured sky has ties to global dimming, flood and drought. Not even mentioning heat retention which is a biggy.

Persistent contrails are easy to eliminate. This knowledge has been around since WWII. Chemtrail deniers don't like this easy fix. Because chemtrailing is a deliberate operation and the government doesn't want it fixed.

A lot of money and private contracts go into the chemtrail debate. Machiavelli is their patron saint. That means that overnight changes to virtual spaces are real because all conventions ordering rules of engagement are out the window on this one.

We can fall back on observation, both present and past, and stay true to the end.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


OP: enjoyed your thread. It's funny that photos, whistleblowers, meteorologists, concerned scientists & researchers & governments and insider confessions: all are just swept under the rug by chemtrail deniers.


Where are htey??

Presumably someone has them somewhere that is not swept under the rug otherwise you wouldn't know about them - so why not post links to them??



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Persistent contrails are easy to eliminate. This knowledge has been around since WWII. Chemtrail deniers don't like this easy fix. Because chemtrailing is a deliberate operation and the government doesn't want it fixed.


You could eliminate contrail by not flying, so I suppose you could say it's easy. But an easy fix? No it's not. And what exactly are you fixing?

And what are you saying here? The chemtrails are just contrails that have not been fixed?

Here's an article I wrote on all the various techniques of contrail mitigation. It's still very much an ongoing and speculative research project. It's not an easy fix (unless you really think that spraying a few tons of chlorosulphuric acid on every flight is an easy fix).

contrailscience.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


OP: enjoyed your thread. It's funny that photos, whistleblowers, meteorologists, concerned scientists & researchers & governments and insider confessions: all are just swept under the rug by chemtrail deniers.

Chemtrails are a big operation and, I'm sure, that the story told to get the operation going was a good one. Protection from UV, as you mentioned in your OP, makes a lot of sense. It would be nice to know why that would be needed but our leaders seem to have forgotten their role. Perhaps something has frightened them and they have not been thinking clearly for a decade or two. I guess we could give them that.

The sky is constantly obscured. The substances used to obscure it are making people ill. The obscured sky has ties to global dimming, flood and drought. Not even mentioning heat retention which is a biggy.

Persistent contrails are easy to eliminate. This knowledge has been around since WWII. Chemtrail deniers don't like this easy fix. Because chemtrailing is a deliberate operation and the government doesn't want it fixed.

A lot of money and private contracts go into the chemtrail debate. Machiavelli is their patron saint. That means that overnight changes to virtual spaces are real because all conventions ordering rules of engagement are out the window on this one.

We can fall back on observation, both present and past, and stay true to the end.


Oh, good to see you finally gave up on that overnight science claim.

Would still love to see those pictures of evidence you speak of here. Re-posting pictures of a KC-10 refueling tanker doesnt quite count.

Many who know the truth (that chemtrails are a falsity) may take great pleasure in pointing out a chemtrail believer as wrong, but there really isnt a joy to be had. Its more of a sadness that people will take such shallow claims as evidence of something, when in reality there is no proof of anything.

But keep trying. You might be able to convert some of the less picky ones around here.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 




Oh, good to see you finally gave up on that overnight science claim.


No I didn't. The junk science that NASA et al threw together overnight in order to combat too too many people observing a change in the skies and demanding answers and organizing, is still junk, created, in a hurry, by short-sighted morons.

There's a moral here: shouldn't ever let the NSA write your science articles. Or something like that. Look at NASA now. Nobody believes them anymore.

You can set up a boiler room and hire a bunch of fairly literate and eloquent people and explain your bunk to them but when they get into the real virtual world of de-bunking, they're going to have questions because things aren't going to add up and they're going to make mistakes because bunk science has flaws. And they're going to get frustrated and they're going to start mistrusting themselves and others, if they have brains, which most of them do.

You're going to hang on to some of them for awhile by telling them various versions of the 'truth' and how this is all so necessary. Eventually most are just going to walk away and never say anything because the non-disclosure agreements were graphic and they've seen a thing or two while employed. And who would believe them anyway. And there are plenty more where they came from. And if patriotism rears its' ugly head, just out-source. There are plenty of countries outside the U.S., for instance, where people speak English and won't really feel like they're betraying anyone because the U.S. is an evil ogre anyway and Americans have it coming.



But keep trying. You might be able to convert some of the less picky ones around here.


Do tell.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Good Catch on Cam there Bud. I am amazed that some still want to argue these. Pics of me as a kid with nice blue skies, some normal clouds, here and there a CONtrail. NO FULL-ON CHEMtrails though that I have found yet. SomeOne before me comm'd that it has to do with the Temps and Humidity Combo's? I guess the temps and Humidity Combo's are different today then they were 40 years ago? LOL!!?? WTF Dude !!! Asthma Rates/Ratios have SkyRocketed, other Lung/Breathing Disorders are Way Way up too, and still there are arguments.... These people will not even wake up when their doors are busted in at 4am with a Storm of MiliPhucks charging right through the house will they.
Oh well. You guys stay safe/healthy if ya can. Later, Syx.
edit on 1-8-2012 by SyxDaliGee because: added a few words, changed some spelling



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyxDaliGee
Good Catch on Cam there Bud. I am amazed that some still want to argue these.


me too, the level of ignorance displayed is shocking. As a child I used to think civilisation had moved beyond the "burn the witch!" mentality of the 17th century, clearly not.


Pics of me as a kid with nice blue skies, some normal clouds, here and there a CONtrail. NO FULL-ON CHEMtrails though that I have found yet.


well, obviously.


SomeOne before me comm'd that it has to do with the Temps and Humidity Combo's? I guess the temps and Humidity Combo's are different today then they were 40 years ago? LOL!!?? WTF Dude !!!


No they aren't, but what has changed is the amount of air traffic in the skies, in addition to that, 40 years ago high bypass engines which are more prone to producing persistent trails only powered the very largest aircraft like 747's and TriStar's whereas now they are seen all the way down to the Dornier 328JET which seats only 36 people. These aircraft fly higher than the turboprops they have replaced In addition to that the largest engines of today are vastly more powerful, an RB211 of 1972 would produce about 25,000lbs of Thrust whereas the largest Trents used now can produce 100,000lbs. Do you really believe that all this would have no visible effect? LOL!!?? WTF dude.


Asthma Rates/Ratios have SkyRocketed, other Lung/Breathing Disorders are Way Way up too, and still there are arguments....


and you know this is due to chemtrails do you? How so?


These people will not even wake up when their doors are busted in at 4am with a Storm of MiliPhucks charging right through the house will they.
Oh well. You guys stay safe/healthy if ya can. Later,


Sadly, when it comes to the Chemtrail believers I think you are right, fear and superstion have such a frightening hold on these people.
edit on 1-8-2012 by waynos because: Grammar



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I live on the Pacific Coast and am outside everyday. I understand where I am regarding direction and normal air traffic. I see contrails. And then I see chemtrails...or what is defined as the difference between the two. I have read these sort of threads on ATS for years, and there is no lack of people who post that are no such thing as chemtrails (some of them are specific enough to say there is no spraying from Passenger Jets ) and that it's just due to increased air traffic. They delight in posting the "science" that explains all trails are contrails which somehow "proves" the idiocy of the argument of chemtrails.
Having said all that.... now if one of these "scientists" can expalin to me that after years of normal air traffic cons or chems aside...that suddenly there is a constant level of air traffic that is over and above normal; that is flying not only tandem but across, forming a grid like pattern ( how how would I know it's a grid like pattern? Because of the spraying that lingered in the air waiting for the coastal winds to push it all east) ; and this sudden increase in air traffic lasted all day and ONLY that day. Interestingly enough, a few days after seeing this constant spraying, there were some devestating storms on the East Coast. Coinkydinky?
I believe "scientists" like I believe in the cupacabra....may or may not be fact. But I DO believe my own "lieing eyes".



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
How do you know that there is more traffic? Are you under the impression that you can see every flight that passes over you? This would be a mistake. Do you think that the reason you believe there is more traffic could be because an approaching weather front (the one that brought the storm) created the conditions whereby all, or at
least more, of the flights overhead produced visible trails, and under normal weather conditions most of them pass unnoticed?

If you have a smartphone you can download a Flightradar 24 app that will let you track flights, if you zoom out a little you may be surprised to see just how many aircraft there really are in the sky.

In your previous post you referred to the difference between chem and contrails. Do you understand why this is not actually correct?

If you see a persisting trail stretching right across the sky, have you ever considered what volume of material a plane would need to carry in order to create a visible trail that looked like that from a minimum of 7 miles away (right above your head) and hundreds of miles across the sky? Contrails are truly vast and when you see a plane do something like a fuel dump its over in seconds and quickly vanishes.
edit on 1-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join