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.
I guess the: "with all due respect to you AND YOUR FRIENDS" negates the: "i think you should seriously seek help" part, huh?
Originally posted by network dude
Originally posted by Afterthought
With all due respect to you and your friends, I think
you
should seriously seek some help.
Your reading comprehension is bad. I tried not to offend the entire chemtrail crowd and tried not to suggest they all needed help. But this one poster who seems to think the whole world is a conspiracy and against him/her would suggest that they could use a little time away from conspiracies at the very least.
Now, if you took my earlier advice to MYOFB none of this would have been necessary. If you think I should be banned, press the alert button. The mods know what to do.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MysterX
So it isn't persistence and spreading. I'll ask again then, what is the difference?
It has been explained to you, that people realise contrails, even persistent contrails exist and have been and continue to be seen normally in our skies in addition to the phenomena of chemtrails.
I provide depth as required. It should be pointed out that a lot of verbiage does not equate with depth.
why not surprise us and actually do that and add a little depth to some of your replies for a change?
Why not tell me what distinguishes a "chemtrail" from a contrail? How can you visually tell the difference?
edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MysterX
I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions, as have many others when explaining the differences between the two to you and others here, many times during posts centered on this topic.
I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions,
Perhaps your concept of what a contribution is varies from that of the moderators.
And verbiage or not, one line posts, as you know both do not contribute much if anything to a debate, and because of that are ruled a violation of ATS T&C
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe? The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by smurfy
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Afterthought
The fuel is pulled randomly and tested by each facility that uses it. (providing they are big enough) and random samples are pulled and sent off to the lab for more in depth testing on a regular basis.
Can you say what the fuel testing you mention is done for?
To ensure that the fuel meets the published standards - which you can read for yourself - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7
It is a legal requirement that aircraft use only materials that conform to the manufacturers specifications and approved modifications - this includes fuel. If you can find evidence that fuel does not meet this specification then you may have evidence that a crime is being commited.
more often than not tho fuel is contaminated by poor procedures - failure to properly clean or purge storage tanks, failure of components such as pumps or pipes, etc. Also water ingress is a significant problem.edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by profundus
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe?
The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.
I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?
Originally posted by profundus
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe? The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by smurfy
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Afterthought
The fuel is pulled randomly and tested by each facility that uses it. (providing they are big enough) and random samples are pulled and sent off to the lab for more in depth testing on a regular basis.
Can you say what the fuel testing you mention is done for?
To ensure that the fuel meets the published standards - which you can read for yourself - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7
It is a legal requirement that aircraft use only materials that conform to the manufacturers specifications and approved modifications - this includes fuel. If you can find evidence that fuel does not meet this specification then you may have evidence that a crime is being commited.
more often than not tho fuel is contaminated by poor procedures - failure to properly clean or purge storage tanks, failure of components such as pumps or pipes, etc. Also water ingress is a significant problem.edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
People are regularly threatening violence to aircraft
This is new to me. As long as I've been reading and participating in these threads, I've never stated any such thing nor seen this proposed by anyone.
If this happens, then the mods need to do their job by blocking the post and banning the member.
Crying...
... about this as a means of defending why this shouldn't be discussed is a sad attempt. Try again.
Sorry peeps, still not buying your "theory". Just because this lady confesses something she believed in, to now be false means NOTHING. How many times have people been disgraced for standing up? When you stand up against the system that put you in that position, you BETTER BE PREPARED to give your life, for your cause.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by profundus
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe?
So you say - but why should I believe you?
I have worked in aviation all my life - as a mechanic doing those fuel tests and working on the fuel system. Also as a quality assurance engineer responsible for checking that an airline maintenance department follows those specifications. I have also worked for a national ergulator who writes and enforces those laws (not the FAA)
I have not seen any piece of evidence, ever, to support your contention. Not while I was working in any of those organisations, nor now from you or any other believer in chemtrails - not from people who make $50k videos, nor from backyard efforts on Youtube. Not from Carnicom, nor from Griffith.
Even some chemtrail activists are beginning to eralise there is no evidence - Rosalind Peterson was another high profile guru - but now she says there is no evidence for chemtrails - she is off on other projects to protect the planet:
The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.
I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?
I understand that you look like you are ranting.
I have no reason to believe your assertion - you provide no evidence to support it other than paranoia, and it is directly contrary to almost 40 years of my experience in commercial aviation.
If you want to convince me I have been a part of a criminal conspiracy you need to do a lot better than just shouting at me.edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by smurfy
to test for containment, make sure all the levels of ingredients are within tolerant levels, and to check for moister. The engines are very finely tuned and while driving you car and finding out you have water in the gas might suck a little, I promise you, in a plane it would suck a lot.
I'm not the one believing things are being run: BY THE BOOK, you are! And, again, like i said: I'm not the one building nuclear power plants, next to an ocean. I'm not the one building nuclear weapons that could destroy us all. Now am i??? That's all the evidence a person needs to know that lunatics are running amuck on our planet! They don't care if we die during their experiments, now do they???
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by profundus
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe? The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by smurfy
Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Afterthought
The fuel is pulled randomly and tested by each facility that uses it. (providing they are big enough) and random samples are pulled and sent off to the lab for more in depth testing on a regular basis.
Can you say what the fuel testing you mention is done for?
To ensure that the fuel meets the published standards - which you can read for yourself - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7
It is a legal requirement that aircraft use only materials that conform to the manufacturers specifications and approved modifications - this includes fuel. If you can find evidence that fuel does not meet this specification then you may have evidence that a crime is being commited.
more often than not tho fuel is contaminated by poor procedures - failure to properly clean or purge storage tanks, failure of components such as pumps or pipes, etc. Also water ingress is a significant problem.edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?
If nobody other than that group is privvy to the "real" specs, how do you happen to know all about them?
You started this part of the discussion by asking why the chemicals could not be added to fuel. I responded and gave you reasons why it would not be a feasable way to go about it, and others have chimed in and backed up that information. If you have any sort of information and evidence that this actually DOES happen, by all means, throw it at us! My eyes and ears are ready to take it all in and go over every tiny bit of what you provide. It would be wrong of me to dismiss the information without at least looking at it.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MysterX
I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions,
Please tell me where you have described the difference.
MysterX
Perhaps your concept of what a contribution is varies from that of the moderators.
And verbiage or not, one line posts, as you know both do not contribute much if anything to a debate, and because of that are ruled a violation of ATS T&Cedit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
We've seen a recent rash of new one-line responses to posts that add nothing to the flow of discussion.
One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.
Originally posted by profundus
Sorry peeps, still not buying your "theory".
Just because this lady confesses something she believed in, to now be false means NOTHING. How many times have people been disgraced for standing up? When you stand up against the system that put you in that position, you BETTER BE PREPARED to give your life, for your cause.
Again, you're still not understanding WHO'S RUNNING THE SHOW. Whistleblowers don't stand a chance! a $50,000 dollar a year salary, is what they feed their dog.
The equipment is located on my face, separated by a nose. What i describe is what i SEE...in the skies. My location is rather unique tho'. Not many planes traveling around these parts....until they decide we need some rain. I haven't seen a plane in the sky, since it poured sleet, the other day. Imagine that! Sleet in Baja California.