Chemtrails Secret Confirmed by a Senior Air Traffic Control Manager for the (FAA)

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by flyswatter
Cloud seeding != chemtrails. I dont know how many more times this can be said before the whole subject just implodes and creates a supermassive black hole on ATS.

But spraying radioactive chemicals from planes does (confirmed). See my post a few up from yours.

The radioactivity of products used in that was never confirmed. This was stated in the video itself.

And these are two completely different issues here.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

That was done like aerial pest control spraying, which is not the same thing as what folks talk about when referring to “chemtrails”. The majority of it was done from blowers on the ground, vehicles, or buildings. They did not form trails that generated clouds, and those clouds didn't persist. This was more like a cloud of smoke that then dissipated, which is why they used the cover story that they were testing “smoke screens”.

That's a bunch of BS and you know it.

First, spraying chemicals from a plane to modify weather isn't a "chemtrail"?

Now, deliberately spraying radioactive chemicals from planes isn't chemtrails either?

And why do you think they had to come up with the BS excuse of testing SMOKE SCREENS if they didn't produce a lasting trail of smoke? A smoke screen does NOT dissipate. That is the point of a smoke screen.

Sometimes I have to wonder.

reply to post by HandyDandy

What folks are talking about when they talk about “chemtrails” is persisting contrails that turn into clouds. Of course there are things that are sprayed from planes (cloud seeding, pest control, fire retardant, etc), but none of that acts in the same manner, has the same appearance, nor is really the same topic.

reply to post by defcon5


I didn't see it in the video where they showed at what altitude they sprayed the "smoke screens" over Texas. Did you?

reply to post by HandyDandy

They were doing it from buildings and trucks, so its a low level application, the same as pest control. When you want something to “hit the ground”, you spray it low to control the area that it's applied too. If you spray it in the upper atmosphere it can drift for hundreds of miles, which would have made it impossible to track the results.

reply to post by defcon5


This proves you didn't even watch the video. They clearly state that planes were used in Texas (military). Please watch the video if you want to debate further.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
All I know is that I remember a time when jets didn't leave "contrails" that lasted for hours or dissipated and turned the sky hazy. Does that make me a chemtrail believer?
PS - i don't trust "anonymous" sources, ever.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the government were spraying tons of crap in the atmosphere for whatever reason. They can't handle money or power responsibly so yes, it's entirely possible.

I have been saying the same thing for about 10 years,I'm 43 and I always looked to the sky.Yes we can say there's more air traffic today but still come on guys!

The text of my post (see below) is old news, but...

"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space."

-President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for
Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
video.google.com...

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by defcon5

 

This proves you didn't even watch the video. They clearly state that planes were used in Texas (military). Please watch the video if you want to debate further.

There was zero detail about what was going on in Texas. The only mention of it was "planes did it in Texas," and the rest of the report dealt with St. Louis.

reply to post by winofiend


You're right about the existence of weather modification, these folks do it for a living.....
weathermodification.com...
Judging by their list of US clients alone business is good...
weathermodification.com...

reply to post by flyswatter


Um....that was the point?

It mentions planes, doesn't say how high they flew for their "smokescreen" testing (I really doubt it was very low or people would have really noticed the military jets right above their homes spraying chemicals on them .....don'tcha think?) but Defcon wants us to believe that they at first were only flying low and now has said that they weren't flying at all. Kinda disingenous if you ask me.

Thanks for reiterating the point I think.

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
All I know is that I remember a time when jets didn't leave "contrails" that lasted for hours or dissipated and turned the sky hazy. Does that make me a chemtrail believer?

I agree so whole-heartily. But if they are just same as always trails then WHY are they behaving this way. What has changed is the chemical composition or atmospheric conditions in the last (say 15 years)? I am asking because I don't believe in "chem-trails" either but the more I am convinced they are just regular contrails the more I am obsessed with WHY they behave this way now.

As long as there have been jets, there have been persistent contrails.
This is a WWII era photo. As technology changes, i.e. different fuel mixes, different engine configurations, it stands to reason the contrails from commercial aircraft could change.

Originally posted by smurfy
That is correct, the particulates are intended to create cloud cover, something a jet is quite capable without anything added. But there is also chemical processes that are going on in the engine, at the exhaust, and in the plume. A jet engine, even the newest types throws out a myriad of toxic sunstances scavenged from engine parts, and all the additives that are in jet fuel, all in micron sizes. I don't think anyone really knows the final chemical brew coming out of jet exhaust, and to add stuff that is toxic in itself is only to increase the unknowns.

the composition of jet exhaust is extensively studied and well known -



A quick google scholar search wil get you many articles (one yuo get past the wiki one!) - eg
Chemical Properties of Aircraft Engine Particulate Exhaust Emissions

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Um....that was the point?

It mentions planes, doesn't say how high they flew for their "smokescreen" testing (I really doubt it was very low or people would have really noticed the military jets right above their homes spraying chemicals on them .....don'tcha think?) but Defcon wants us to believe that they at first were only flying low and now has said that they weren't flying at all. Kinda disingenous if you ask me.

Thanks for reiterating the point I think.

edit on 27-9-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

No, actually. My point was that there was no cooberating evidence that had to deal with Texas. There was nothing shown (or said, for that matter) that tied any of the St. Louis spraying to Texas.

But dont get me wrong - that is not to say that it is false or made up. What I am saying is that you cannot use the evidence of St. Louis to show the exact same thing went on in Texas. Simply saying "they used planes in Texas" with nothing shown or said to back it up means nearly nothing.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by flyswatter
Cloud seeding != chemtrails. I dont know how many more times this can be said before the whole subject just implodes and creates a supermassive black hole on ATS.

But spraying radioactive chemicals from planes does (confirmed). See my post a few up from yours.

I can't view the video - but I have seen another thread where the spraying is identified as zinc cadmium sulfate - is that the same subject?

'cos if so
1/ it is not radioactive.
2/ it is not a gas.

Just saying......

I don't care what anyone thinks. I don't need no dang source to know chemtrails EXIST!! ((((ECHOS)))

The weather has been fine in the last gazillion years until all this crap came along.

If it isn't natural then its bad!! Just like GMO food crap!!

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by smurfy
...A jet engine, even the newest types throws out a myriad of toxic sunstances scavenged from engine parts, and all the additives that are in jet fuel, all in micron sizes. I don't think anyone really knows the final chemical brew coming out of jet exhaust, and to add stuff that is toxic in itself is only to increase the unknowns.
stuff that is toxic in itself is only to increase the unknowns.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that jet exhaust is adding to air pollution; that idea is quite obvious.

However, automobile exhaust causes much greater pollution (due to the volume of cars on the road, and due to jet engines being more efficient than automobiles to begin with). However, some still fixate on pollution from jet engine exhaust as if it is a greater threat, and ignore other forms of air pollution.

edit on 9/27/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

It's not an idea, it is known, that is to say, what has been researched on with the known parameters available. This often falls short when something like jet fuel has numerous proprietary elements in it. And that is the rub, if the researcher does not have all the facts, he could spend years on research, come up with concerns about exhaust products, and not even know that it could be much worse. The ground and air comparison is a misnomer, since proper comparison cannot be made.
Apart from all that, there is the need to address the idea of deliberate 'chemtrailing' Does it happen in the way described in this thread, apart being a covert operation, and are there any reasons why it should be done, (even if the method could be described as hamfisted) and apart from 'Global whatever' even Teller was out on that one, but he took the money and ran. You see nobody asks that question, all you get is, chemtrails are a hoax, or chemtrails are real. Yet recently we had the Rio and Kyoto and Copenhagen conferences, (obstensibly about global whatever) without drastic global agreement on drastic measures at all, then you have this guy come up with this,
American Enterprise Institute's Resident Fellow and Co director of the AEI geo-engineering Project Lee Lane,
advocates "a global imposition of geo-engineering technologies on behalf of the advanced, industrialized states of the world in the firm conviction, that "geo-engineering experiments shouldn't require global agreement" So he talks about a national/global interest in one breath, that kind of makes everything industrial almost alright doesn't it? he's gonna take care of it. What does AEI do? You'll probably find that they have a aerosol spraying programme amongst others about somewhere to protect us all, well not us in particular, but our technological infrastructure say from EMP's from any source, I'm sure the military is definitely interested there, and just about every,"advanced, industrialized states of the world" feck the rest of 'em? This is also a good time for the spin, being near solar maximum for instance, aircraft doing funny things, cars doing funny things blah blah!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
That is correct, the particulates are intended to create cloud cover, something a jet is quite capable without anything added. But there is also chemical processes that are going on in the engine, at the exhaust, and in the plume. A jet engine, even the newest types throws out a myriad of toxic sunstances scavenged from engine parts, and all the additives that are in jet fuel, all in micron sizes. I don't think anyone really knows the final chemical brew coming out of jet exhaust, and to add stuff that is toxic in itself is only to increase the unknowns.

the composition of jet exhaust is extensively studied and well known -

A quick google scholar search wil get you many articles (one yuo get past the wiki one!) - eg
Chemical Properties of Aircraft Engine Particulate Exhaust Emissions

Arrggghh, not that picture again! even you own link about testing on the ground, confirms what I have said already about unknowns, and even that part of the study was/is ongoing.

Originally posted by flyswatter
But dont get me wrong - that is not to say that it is false or made up. What I am saying is that you cannot use the evidence of St. Louis to show the exact same thing went on in Texas. Simply saying "they used planes in Texas" with nothing shown or said to back it up means nearly nothing.

Did you miss the part of the video where the woman who studied this is going to disclose all this information? I doubt a NEWS cast would go into such detail.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by flyswatter
Cloud seeding != chemtrails. I dont know how many more times this can be said before the whole subject just implodes and creates a supermassive black hole on ATS.

But spraying radioactive chemicals from planes does (confirmed). See my post a few up from yours.

I can't view the video - but I have seen another thread where the spraying is identified as zinc cadmium sulfate - is that the same subject?

'cos if so
1/ it is not radioactive.
2/ it is not a gas.

Just saying......

Is it a chemical? BTW...they state that the ZCS was used for the chemical containing the radioactive material....not the ZCS itself.

Did they spray it on unsuspected civilians?

Did they use military jets to do so?

Yes + Yes + Yes = Chemtrails

Whether you denialists say so or not.