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.

 

So Maybe There ARE Chemtrails...

page: 12
72
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i believe you missed the point.

the means to independently test the trails would most likely be somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars...

as to the regs, i may have mis-spoke on that.....i can't find a specific regulation earmarking an altitude range for commercial traffic, but there is a flight level range that is traditionally reserved for commercial traffic.

nice videos, by the way....but without knowing the circumstances under which they were filmed, they're kinda useless..
edit on 27-2-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Actually I was just quoting what one of the contrail poster said lol adding bit of humor into this thread needs to calm down




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I used to only come here for the "chemtrail" debates. It is something so frustrating to me that people would rather believe in something than try and learn something.
Face it, all you people who feel I must be some kind of a professional ...????shill, disinfo agent, plant, NWO reptilian?......only increases my feelings about how far your paranoia has taken over your logic and thought processes.
I am easy to find online. My footprint is small, but I'm easy to find.
Please show something, anything that proves your point. All the time I've been on this forum for years and everything claimed as evidence by a believer is easy to debunk. This particular thread is an example. Lots of pictures of contrails, testimonials, feelings, recollections....but no tests to show that a "chemtrail" is doing or contains anything more than a contrail does.
You don't have to be a professional , I have just learned enough about all the related sciences involved to know contrails are contrails, "chemtrails" are contrails, and there is no real evidence to the contrary.
Why does this make my participation and views any less valid than yours? I've asked for evidence, and nothing. I've offered evidence to the contrary and no one refutes it beyond attempts at insulting me.
If you can't refute the science, or even attempt to show how the science is wrong, you are operating on a belief system only.
That is not good enough for me, most of the people in the world, and scientists for the past 90+ years.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

That is a point which is often brought up. High altitude cloudiness has an overall warming effect (the opposite of what SRM would be intended to do).

There isn't enough data to determine how much contrails contribute to the effect though. It is a topic of quite a bit of study.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by Phage
 



nice videos, by the way....but without knowing the circumstances under which they were filmed, they're kinda useless..


Which if I said it about "chemtrail" videos I would get soundly thrashed and called all kinds of things.
Funny, isn't it? So videos for "chemtrails" are evidence, but videos not for "chemtrails" are held to a higher standard of proof?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


the means to indepemndently test the trails would most likely be somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars...
Not really. Hourly operating cost of a G1 Gulfstream is about $2,700/hr. $50k would buy a good amount of airtime with extras for the crew, testing, etc.

Here's a place to inquire about the specifics.
www.pnl.gov...


but there is a flight level range that is traditionally reserved for commercial traffic.
Not really. There are flight levels which are conducive to maximum efficiency. There are no "reserved" levels.


but without knowing the circumstances under which they were filmed, they're kinda useless..
Except that they demonstrate that sampling contrails would not be difficult.

edit on 2/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, and they're going to just keep talking about it because they don't know how to solve the issue. While they're twiddling their thumbs, our airplane pollution is trapping in all our automobile pollution. Just a vicious cycle. Maybe they're going to try to put something in the contrails to help them dissipate faster? That'll be their next genius maneuver. But, then if the contrails dissipate faster, how will they hide the chemical trails among them?
Yeah, I know. I'm just talking crazy now. Crazy, crazy, crazy....



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


our airplane pollution is trapping in all our automobile pollution. Just a vicious cycle.
No. Contrails trap longwave (infrared) radiation. They don't trap automobile pollution. Way too high to do that.


Maybe they're going to try to put something in the contrails to help them dissipate faster?
The idea of rerouting probably holds more promise but in any case it would lead to increased costs with, at this point, an uncertain benefit.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Yes, you're right about them trapping solar heat, but the pollution is also a major issue and ground pollution at higher temps certainly isn't good.
I don't see much hope of rerouting the airplanes either seeing as it appears that air traffic controllers are going to be getting the axe soon. It just keeps getting better, doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 





Yes, and they're going to just keep talking about it because they don't know how to solve the issue. While they're twiddling their thumbs, our airplane pollution is trapping in all our automobile pollution.


Actually I think this is more of a problem....




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

It's all a problem. You can't isolate any pollution and say one is worse than the other because they all combine.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes
 


Chemtrails or Contrails doesn't matter, you can't use the Troll or Shill words any longer on ATS. No Matter what then, don't fall for for the temptation.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by Phage
 


i believe you missed the point.

the means to indepemndently test the trails would most likely be somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars...


Based on what? Even a 747 only cost somethign in the order of $20k per hour - why would you need hundreds of thousands for smaller aircraft flying a number of relatively short missions??



as to the regs, i may have mis-spoke on that.....i can't find a specific regulation earmarking an altitude range for commercial traffic, but there is a flight level range that is traditionally reserved for commercial traffic.


Class A airspace from 18000 ft to FL 600 (which is 60,000 feet) is reserved for Instrument Flight Rules Traffic - but it does not have to be commercial - you can fly a private a/c in that airspace if you follow the appropraite IFR rules.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by Daedalus
 

Okay, so facts are not important to you.
Neither is science or logic.
You believe, you will always believe and no one can change your mind.


If you can't approach me on the same level, we can't discuss this rationally.
To make a claim of "chemtrail" you have to know what is in a "chemtrail."
To just say it's a "chemtrail" because it looks like one, is not on the same level as my research.
Sorry you are bothered by my approach.


All i can think is that the air must be awfully thin up there on your high horse.....

its the only reason i can think of for you to make all these assumptions, ans spurious claims...

How did you come to the conclusion that facts are not important to me?
How did you come to the conclusion that science and logic are not important to me?
How did you come to the conclusion that my belief, or disbelief in a given topic is an absolute, unconnected with irrefutable laws of nature?

all i did was point out that your SOLE criteria for disqualifying a youtube video is the fact that it's a youtube video..

For this, you imply that i am some kind of dullard, uninterested in science, logic, facts, and completely closed-minded, and unopen to alternative points of view....

i love how anyone who disagrees with you, or questions anything you say MUST be some kind of idiot...

what makes you more qualified to speak on the subject than myself, or anyone else here, for that matter?

i would appreciate it if, in the future, you would drop the attitude, and stop thinking that you are so much smarter than everyone around you...you're not on some magical higher level than the rest of us.....in fact, when you pull that s**t, you show just how little class, and intelligence you really have..
edit on 27-2-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

It's all a problem. You can't isolate any pollution and say one is worse than the other because they all combine.



At sea level you are breathing much more polution generated by cars and trucks than by a/c - because:

1/ land vehicles burn several times as much fuel as aircraft (see www.abovetopsecret.com...), and
2/ they burn it where we live and breath, not 5 miles overhead



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

And you're believing that airplane pollution floats out into outer space?

One word: Gravity



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes
 




That's a bit of trolling if I've ever seen it. Well done.


Thanks I am glad you enjoyed them..

Now, can you prove any of what was said in those videos wrong?



Double sarcasm can get confusing so let me draw a picture so we're both clear.

You lack good discussion skills. You simply posted those videos to evoke a response. Or bait, flame, troll anyone who engaged with it. I see what you're doing and it won't be entertained. Great! Youtube is your source of evidence and debunking.

Can I invest in your R&D and have you be my lead researcher? Your methods are astounding and cutting edge

Your credibility stock has just lost any points you didn't have.

Next question?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Daedalus

let us suppose for a moment that chemtrails are real....and let us suppose for a moment that their purpose is to modify weather, and to increase the content of certain elements in the atmosphere...

assume that is true for a moment...


Why would I want to ASSUME any of that is true?? why would I not want some evidence of it?


.....think on that for a moment..


when I think on that I notice that the whole point relies upon initially accepting a bunch of assumptions for which there is no credible evidence.

Why would you bother thinking about a conclusion based on such feet of clay in the first place?

Why not put that effort into finding out whther or not those assumptions have any actual basis, and, finding no evidence for them, not bother worrying about it?



i was attempting to answer a theoretical question....to do that, one has to suspend disbelief, and entertain theoretical ideas, because the entire exchange deals in...you guessed it; the theoretical....

nice try though..



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

You should read this article:
www.berkeleydailyplanet.com...
I'll start you off.

Did you know that the U.S. Congress has been holding hearings on solar radiation management, (SRM), a geoengineering technique which intends to mitigate global warming by blocking sunlight from the earth? Geoengineering (as laid out by the Council on Foreign Relations in their “Unilateral Geoengineering” workshop May 2008) is defined as “Any of a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming.” Yeah, things didn’t go well in Copenhagen, but not to worry, atmospheric scientists to the rescue. House testimonies of scientists Ken Caldiera, John Shepard, James Fleming, Alan Robock, and Co-director of the American Enterprise Institutes’ Geoengineering Project Lee Lane can be found at: http/science.house.gov/Publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2668.

The scientists testimonies lay out possible “future” geoengineering techniques including the SRM Aerosol Program. This is described as being administered by military jets, high in the atmosphere, laying down particles of sulfur dioxide which effectively haze the sky and dim the sun. Other candidates include hydrogen sulfide and soot. “A broad range of materials might be used as stratospheric scatterers,” says Lee Lane. ”Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum-oxide dust, or even designer self-levitating aerosols” (CFR Unilateral Geoengineering workshop, May 2008).

Now, why would you think that pollution from airplanes and SRM technology is immune to gravity?
Please explain.

Not to mention, with all the volcanic activity the Earth has been experiencing, which is considered natural SRM, what do you think happens when natural and artificial SRM combine?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Based on what? Even a 747 only cost somethign in the order of $20k per hour - why would you need hundreds of thousands for smaller aircraft flying a number of relatively short missions??



Wrong. Not according to David Keith, the geoengineering scientist who has a plan to use
aircraft to spray Sulferic Acid into the atmosphere about 20 kilo...

According to Keith’s calculations, it would take 25,000 metric tons of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after one year using 11 or so jets delivering roughly 250,000 metric tons of it each year, at an annual cost of $700 million.

And here you all are using your same old tired and faulty "science" again in another "chemtrail" thread.



Here is the plan. Customize several Gulfstream business jets with military engines and with equipment to produce and disperse fine droplets of sulfuric acid. Fly the jets up around 20 kilometers—significantly higher than the cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner but still well within their range. At that altitude in the tropics, the aircraft are in the lower stratosphere.

The planes spray the sulfuric acid, carefully controlling the rate of its release. The sulfur combines with water vapor to form sulfate aerosols, fine particles less than a micrometer in diameter. These get swept upward by natural wind patterns and are dispersed over the globe, including the poles
www.technologyreview.com...
edit on 27-2-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join