FedEx airplane guy documents Chemtrail sprayers CLOSE CALLS

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by infowarrior9970
dessicated human red blood cells


...


Yes, those are all salient points. But do you just automatically believe everything you hear, or does it occur to you that that might have been less than the truth?
Like, no truth at all?
Why get that upset because someone just suggests something horrific? It seems you give them the power to affect you very easily if you don't question the truth of what they're saying in the first place.
Ask yourself where they got evidence of this in the first place, before you start organising a march on Washington. Is there even any evidence, or is this just another jews eating babies story?
Why would they want you to think this?
Are you being controlled?
edit on 3-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


And just about anything mixed with jet fuel would be destroyed when it went through the engine from the temperature.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 




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.

Okay. Skirting the issue. I will cut you some slack. I do not care how. I just want the data that demonstrates your weather has been modified.

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.

I personally believe a lot of things, but I can point to solid evidence in order to support those beliefs. You believe in Santa? Got proof of Santa? Clouds serve a purpose in weather. But clouds have been around a LONG, LONG time. Well before planes. I will cut you slack in this area. PROVE there have been more cloudy days in your area than prior to planes.

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.

I have empirical science on my side:
1) I see a trail behind a jet;
2) I know a jet has engines;
3) I know other forms of transportation also have engines and I have seen trails behind them;
4) I ask myself, "Self, could these be exhaust trails from the engines?"
5) I look at all evidence and answer the question, "Self, the answer is yes!"

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.

If this is the only proof that will ever be accepted, then why do you think no one has ever done this, instead of posting disingenuous claptrap? Could it be people like Carnicorn and Thomas would be suddenly left without a cash cow?

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?

Out of the programs you have listed, show me one that has taken place in your area. Demonstrate it uses jet contrails.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 





But anyway it's being mixed into the jet fuel.


Do you know how a jet engine works?



You can't just put anything you want into the fuel of a jet engine without major consequences..

As for your link...

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Here are a few things you may want to know about it....

First it is using hoax videos as being true such as...



The truth about that video...



Secondly they use this site from a self admitted troll...

www.chemtrailforecast.com...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you see a bit better research would do some good when it comes to the chemtrail hoax.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by smarterthanyou
But anyway it's being mixed into the jet fuel.
www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


So then why do we only see the trails at certain altitudes and under certain conditions? If those fluffy white trails are really CHEMtrails, and they are caused by additives in the jet fuel, then we should see those trails coming out of planes all the time, not just sometimes.

...Or maybe I misunderstand, and you are NOT claiming that those white visible trails are chemtrails.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

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...


If something is in jet fuel then you should find the highest concentrations of it near airports, since aircraft burn fuel the fastest on takeoff and climb. So get out those air quality testers!!

also you should be able to buy some jet fuel and test it - the allowable additives are public knowledge - you can read them in Def Std 91-91 - so anything other than these materials is your "chwemtrail".

Also if you do find anything else you have evidence of a crime - since all materials used on civil aircraft have to be approved - anything othe than the approved materials in jet fuel would be a crime on a par with "bogus parts" that sometimes make the headlines.

Of course what the site you link to says is NOT that " it's being mixed into the jet fuel" at all.

It says that IF this particular plan was to be implemented, then it could be done -


...possibly by addition to aviation fuel,...


So it is a possible mechanism IF a plan was carried out some time in the future!

I'm afraid your revelation is just another case of someone not understanding future tense
edit on 3-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


Some of them. But a couple of the types I saw and tentatively identified aren't used for cargo flights, they're only used for passenger flights.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The extent of these weather engineering programs appears extensive, way more than even the large list I posted earlier, I am actually impressed by the large and growing numbers of people I see engaged in trying to understand the politics, health effects and the environmental efffects of these programs and actually how much info is being accumulated and analyzed. (more on that later) While this quote from a site is just one of so many many out there now I found it worth a read (and especially the comments) just to see what other people are *personally* thinking on this issue. For the record I don't find the term 'chemtrails' usefull, ALL trails might be called 'chemtrails' in reality, based on the amount of any pollutants, any particular 'trail' could have a different chemical composition, but the whole word misses the point by far (more later on that too).

But just for fun:
(now you bunktoids don't get too excited lol)

*** Mod Edit***
Please review


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.

ATS Terms and Conditions of Use
edit on 12/4/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

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.



Waynos, relax, I'm just having some fun, I am open minded and (usualllY) tolerant enough to hear just about anyone's viewpoint. (so I posted the above which does share some good inititiative by the way) The thing is the programs *seem* to have very little (legit?) oversight, I have been trying to ascertain just what is being used, I posted a list of just ONE mix,-- IF-- aluminum and/or barium is being used in large percents, as SOME say (and I'm currently researching how much is being found) I see this as a VERY big problem. All this game playing (usual suspects,,yawn) on ATS seems stupid and counterproductive. These things will affect us ALL no matter how much we feel we are insulated. WE should each be trying to find out what programs are being done in our own local area. I walked out this morning, to near 70 degrees here in Mid Missouri on DEC 3. (maybe I won't have to retire to warm Florida), I walked out to the most incredible mess of plane created clouds and trails and sun blockers and sundogs, and light scattering.... It looked like some scene from a futuristic (hmmm) movie (yes I'll be getting some pics out soon..), this big tanker plane flew outside my porch to the south and did a nice 90 deg. curve (filling in the cloud bank created by these dozens of early morning hornets) No I won't try and convince you (or anyone) this isn't 'normal', it is what it is, I'll be posting some pics as soon as I can just for fun.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I'm so relaxed I'll be asleep soon (well, it is 1am!)


So maybe not the best time to be getting involved in a discussion, lol

If I had seen any kind of case that chemtrailing is happening that didn't have great big holes in it, I would agree with you 100% on that last sentiment you posted, But I'm afraid the fixation with airliner trails, as in that, seemingly, the only way to show GE is occurring at full scale is to deny what is known to be factually true in this field already, kills it for me.

And I'm not referring specifically to you, I take on board that you have witnessed something you cannot accept as normal contrails, 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.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



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


That's true, it's quite conceivable that any weather mod in Missouri, might be quite different than what is happening in Texas, or California, or Arizona, I do find it so interesting though that SO many citizens World-wide have raised concerns, have formed groups and have spent so much time and energy into the topic. And so much 'study' being done. (At what point does it become a program/) Weather 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',



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
The biggest problem I see (other than playing god and deciding who gets rain, who gets drought , who get's weaponized 'storms' etc) is the actual potential for environmental and health damage on the ground from these weather mod projects.. I am still looking into material lists (of the hundreds of admitted projects). I don't know for sure if barium and aluminum and strontium, which are said to be the main culprits and seem to turn up the most are still being used to a great extent vs other methods like carbon black, sulphates, silver compounds etc. but evidently many people out testing in the field believe the former two are being used still.


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?


www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
edit on 4-12-2012 by Tecumte because: link added
edit on 4-12-2012 by Tecumte because: sp.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

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.


Which weather modification technology would create long white lines in the sky then? And how is it different from a persistent contrail?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

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?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Tecumte
 


I would actually echo the question and here is my reasons. We know that clouds and contrails form when moisture condensates around a nuclei and happens when the air is saturated to the point it cannot hold the water vapour, as illustrated here


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


So, as I understand it, these additional CCN that are to be sprayed cause the moisure in the air to condense around them. To me this is talking about creating MORE cloud under the right conditions, not making clouds where they wouldn't otherwise exist.

But what about where the RH isn't high enough for clouds to form by themselves? This is why you see contrails vanish in a short time, when the RH is on the tipping point, as it were, this is where trails will persist and spread in an otherwise clear sky.

How does the GE operation you are talking about raise the RH high enough to create clouds in conditions where they cannot form by themselves? According to the link it must add moisture or reduce the temperature, but none of the proposals I've seen seems to offer a way to do this. And yet the specific point has been made that this operation somehow creates clouds in dry clear air?

In normal aviation the passing of the jet can tip the balance, but if this is the case why do you need to spray anything if it will happen all by itself from the jet exhaust?

But you guys are all saying it ISN'T just the jet exhaust, its had something added to it, do you see my problem? It seems rather pointless.

Then of course there is the small matter of contrail formation and persistence or the lack of it conforming exactly to the parameters described. So still nobody has shown that any contrail is a chemtrail.
edit on 4-12-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


One might equally ask why some people choose to attack other posters motives/sanity/credibility etc rather than either addressing the points they raise or choosing to ignore them and do something more productive for them. This is a discussion board, is it sane or rational to question why someone comes here for a discussion?


Maybe the reason Uncinus keeps asking this question is the same reason that I do, ie nobody ever answers it.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

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?


It's a hobby. Some people have thousands of posts on model trains, or watching football. So yes, it's normal human behavior.

I gravitated towards the topic because I was interested in it. Also, as you point out, normal. However I'm also concerned about the spread of bunk, and I like to try and stop it.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join