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 infowarrior9970
dessicated human red blood cells
...
Not my job to PROVE it Mikey, lol, a simple straw man as you know, prove it for yourself ,I never made that claim that I knew 'exactly' how this changed the weather, only that out to the west a massive cloud bank was plane created, I watched it in it's making.
I PERSONALLY believe it is intentional weather mod. Do massive plane created cloud banks affect the weather. temps I would have to guess likley when there are enough of them, wouldn't you.
WE are looking at all manner of weather modification and theoretical connections and observations, what do you have to offer on the subject other than the usual 'debunker' spoon feed me mentality.
Post some useful links and add to the thread, your request is childish. Do some of your own homework. I have said many times the only PROOF that ever will be accepted is to start taking air samples at altitude.
I hope this happens.But in the mean time we can ponder the 'circumstantial' evidence, weather mod is taking place globally (and I don't discount other clandestine projects). I've alreday listed dozens of verifiable programs, which IMO paints a clear picture. How about we start going through all of the different known weather mod programs to get a base line and then we can expand on the more hypothetical ones mentioned in many patents and white papers. Sound reasonable. Where would you like to start?
But anyway it's being mixed into the jet fuel.
Originally posted by smarterthanyou
But anyway it's being mixed into the jet fuel.
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
Originally posted by smarterthanyou
reply to post by Zaphod58
They could have been cargo planes the logo's were nearly impossible to see.
But anyway it's being mixed into the jet fuel.
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
...possibly by addition to aviation fuel,...
15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:
i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.
19) Advertising: You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on the Websites within posts, private messages, avatars and/or signatures without prior written permission from TAN. You will not choose a username that is the same as a website domain, subdomain, URL, organization, or business for which you are associated. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.
Originally posted by waynos
While both your post and the quoted text within it are clearly sincere, I still dont understand why people who like to think they are inquisitive just give the findings of WITWATS a free pass, and call it 'informative', while EVERYTHING that contradicts those findings is just dismissed.
If I'd seen it with you I would be in a better position to either try to explain why you were wrong, or be fully behind you if I also saw something odd, but alas I didn't
Originally posted by TecumteWeather mods not the only game in town though,but IMO it is accounting for a large percent of the reaction from the public and of so many reports of these 'chemtrails',
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by TecumteWeather mods not the only game in town though,but IMO it is accounting for a large percent of the reaction from the public and of so many reports of these 'chemtrails',
But there's no known weather modification technology that would create long white lines in the sky. Is there?
Data produced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shows elevated levels of chemtrail toxins. Between 1990 and 2002, CARB ambient air statewide average data shows elevated and increasing levels of Aluminum and Barium. From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to 2000 nanograms per cubic meter. Even more concerning is Barium which between 1990 and 2002 consistently trended upwards, reaching a peak of 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter in 2002. The CARB classifies Aluminum and Barium as toxic compounds. The CARB website says, "For toxics compounds, there is generally no threshold concentration below which the air is healthy. For toxics compounds, the greater the quantified health risk, the more unhealthy the air is." In other words, ANY Aluminum or Barium is unhealthy. There ARE NO SAFE LEVELS except zero. These Aluminum levels are disturbing, but the Barium levels are totally inexplicable except in the light of the chemtrail hypothesis. Remember, these are STATEWIDE AVERAGES. God forbid you might be living in an area that increased the average.
You may ask why I am only referencing data up to 2002. This is 2011. Where is the missing data? The answer is that data from between 1990 and 2002 is the only data which the CARB has widely distributed. As far as statewide averages for ambient Aluminum and Barium are concerned, these years are the only years which their website and their 'California Ambient Air Quality Data' DVD show. Their Public Information Officer Dimitri Stanich curiously refused to answer questions about the missing data. He referred me to documents which did not address the issue. After discussions with staff, Mike Miguel, the chief of the Quality Management Branch of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division, wrote me saying, "It is my understanding that the toxics air monitoring network (samples collected in Summa canisters) stoped analyzing for these compounds due to the low concentrations. However, the PM2.5 network does analyze for these compounds and that data was provided in the analyses and CD."(sic) A statewide average of Barium at 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter and Aluminum at 2000 are low concentrations?! A yearly statewide average should not show ANY Barium and any levels of detectable Aluminum or Barium have been classified as unhealthy. The concentrations were trending upwards. They stopped analyzing for these compounds?! I have scoured their website, written letters and made many phone calls to the CARB and I have not heard of or seen this missing data presented in any CD. Thankfully, other people have been asking for this missing data as well. The organization known as Environmental Voices requested the missing data and on September 15, 2010 they got it. Amazingly, after data showing many years of elevated and increasing levels of Aluminum and Barium, this newly produced data showed MUCH LOWER levels. That's good news, right? I want to believe that everything is as it has always been. The only problem is that, upon scrutiny of the numbers, you will find that the newly released data contradicts the previously released data.
Let us look at data for the year 2002 both new and old. 2002 is a year for which the CARB widely distributed data AND it is a year for which they have provided data to only a select few researchers such as I due to the efforts of Environmental Voices. I will refer to the widely distributed data as the 'old' data and the thinly distributed data as the 'new' data. The old data says that in 2002 the statewide average for ambient Aluminum was 1980 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says that the statewide average in 2002 was 67.5 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data also says that statewide average Aluminum concentrations generally remained at this level through to 2009. As far as Barium goes, the old data says that the statewide ambient air average Barium concentration for 2002 was 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says it was 27.5 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says that statewide average Barium concentrations only trended lower from 2002 to 2009. Why does the new data contradict the old data?
Are certain people at the CARB trying to hide something?
Originally posted by Tecumte
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by TecumteWeather mods not the only game in town though,but IMO it is accounting for a large percent of the reaction from the public and of so many reports of these 'chemtrails',
But there's no known weather modification technology that would create long white lines in the sky. Is there?
Is that a real question? lol, Surely you know better. Dozens of methods and patents and white papers easily availble here on ATS and elsewhere show adding aerosols and particulates to the atmosphere for cloud creation and seeding projects is a basic component. You guys are still playing the game that seeding 'into' clouds; rather than seeding FOR clouds is somehow the ONLY method. Not true. They are part and parcel of the same attempts at weather mod.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Which weather modification technology would create long white lines in the sky then? And how is it different from a persistent contrail?
Clouds form when the air is saturated and cannot hold any more water vapour, this can happen in two ways:
The amount of water in the air has increased - for example through evaporation - to the point that the air cannot hold any more water.
The air is cooled to its dew point - the point where condensation occurs - and the air is unable to hold any more water
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Originally posted by Uncinus
Which weather modification technology would create long white lines in the sky then? And how is it different from a persistent contrail?
Why are some people so obsessed with the debunking of chemtrails? Some people have literally thousands of posts attempting to debunk the existence of chemtrails. Is that normal human behavior?
Don't normal people gravitate towards topics they like/ agree with / are interested in, and for the most part avoid topics they think are bunk/crazy/a waste of time?