Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why chemtrails cannot be discussed without turmoil.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Ghost375
 


cloud seeding (see any site that advertises that service) is very different. A small plane or small rocket, dumps silver iodide into an already existing cloud that looks like it might hold some water in hopes that it will let loose of that water and start to rain.

Cloud seeding is a well known way to "try" to induce a rain storm.
science.howstuffworks.com...

It has nothing at all to do with chemtrails/contrails.

I'm saying they are related based on my observations. What they spray turns into overcast skies. An advanced form of cloud seeding.

They've been doing it more often at night for the past year or so.
edit on 1-3-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SPECULUM
 


folks from all over the world have been recording high levels of aluminum and other materials in their soil and water samples and spent large sums of money to prove their point, so if that isn't proof then what the hell is?

Proof would be objective, verifiable evidence of a correlation between high aluminium content in soil and water and the presence of vapour trails in the sky.

What you propose doesn't even come close. Aluminium is something you would expect to find, in compound form, in soil (and hence in groundwater) anyway. So what is a 'high level'? Compared to what? How is it determined that the level is high? Who did these studies? Have they been replicated? Who has the figures?

And once that part is dealt with, how does anyone know that the aluminium came from chemtrails? How do you prove that? What are chemtrails made of? Do you know they contain aluminium? Has anybody 'sampled the cloud' (as the OP puts it) to determine whether they contain aluminium (or barium, which some chemtrail conspiracy theorists seem to prefer to aluminium)?

Then, how did the aluminium get from chemtrail to soil/water? Pure aluminium oxidises almost instantly on contact with air, and aluminium oxide is chemically inert and harmless to humans unless it is in fibre form. Also, aluminium oxide does not dissolve in water.

You are mistaking correlation for causation and suspicion for proof.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


What they spray turns into overcast skies.
No. It doesn't require any "spray" for that to happen. It's what happens when the atmospheric conditions are right and planes fly through it. It's atmospheric physics, not spraying.
From 1919:

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.
www.accessmylibrary.com...

From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 

Thank you for posting evidence of the reality of climate change. It is important that people understand the danger, and there are many vested interests, especially in America, which are trying to pooh-pooh this and just keep on extracting and polluting like there's no tomorrow.

However, evidence of climate change is not evidence of a covert programme to control or alter the weather using 'chemtrails'. Do you have any evidence of that?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 


you did ask me for some proof that there is more cancer now than there was then and the proof is in those food addivitves and chemicals that have been causing cancer for the last few decades.

No, that is not proof that cancer rates have increased. It is an attempt to explain why they have—if they have. To show proof that cancer has increased in prevalence or lethality, you will have to show statistics of exactly those variables, or proxy indicators directly linked to them. Such data are widely and publicly available.

Cancer death rates in the USA have not increased in the last forty years. In fact, they show a slight decline.


The cancer death rate, now about 200 deaths a year per 100,000 people of all ages and 1,000 deaths per 100,000 people over age 65 — is nearly the same now as it was in 1950, dropping only 5 percent.

Death rates from other diseases have fallen faster, but cancer mortality is not increasing.

Cancer diagnosis has also declined according to this release from the CDC.

*


reply to post by nomnom
 


Cancer rates have risen globally. You can't account for this from the food additives alone.

Cancer rates have risen globally? Have you figures to prove this?

I believe the figures worldwide show that the incidence of cancer (that is, the rate of diagnoses per capita) is not rising, although the number of cases is. That is because (1) the world's population is growing, and (2) the world's population is ageing, and old people are more susceptible to cancer than young ones. Food additives are really not an important factor in this, except to Natural News fans and other conspiracy theorists. The main factors are obesity, smoking and infection.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ghost375
 


What they spray turns into overcast skies.
No. It doesn't require any "spray" for that to happen. It's what happens when the atmospheric conditions are right and planes fly through it. It's atmospheric physics, not spraying.
From 1919:

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.
www.accessmylibrary.com...

From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


phage, i have said it before but you are a dangerous entity.

chemical trailing is an absolute reality and if you do not recognise this, then you are not looking
or you are living in an area which isn't being interfered with. or you are lying.
a few weeks ago a black plane in the shape of the letter A flew directly over
my head leaving a huge trail across the sky. i do not live in a militarised country
(ireland) but that's the first time i have seen anything like that here.
i am well accustomed to 'normal' chemtrailing, as i have been observing it for the last 3 years.


phage: 'They are just clouds and normal vapour trails from aeroplanes'




what's your take on 9/11 again phage?
edit on 2-3-2013 by OutonaLimb because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
LMAO..... I think there must be over a million threads on this topic.
I'm laughing too hard to hit the search button.

Is it like a mandatory requirement to be an ATS member to restart a thread that has been discussed without any new evidence for either side every other week?

Phage has always maintained his position about this subject matter.
It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree.

I happen to believe that contrails, errrr chemtrails or geo engineering is a real science.

Phage does not. So what? It has already been written 10,000 times. Errr a million.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 





chemical trailing is an absolute reality and if you do not recognise this, then you are not looking


Funny when I look all I absolutely see are contrails.



or you are lying.


Pretty big accusation your tossing out there now isn't it?



a few weeks ago a black plane in the shape of the letter A flew directly over my head leaving a huge trail across the sky. i do not live in a militarised country (ireland) but that's the first time i have seen anything like that here.


And how do you know it was a military plane and how did you come to the conclusion it was spraying chemtrails?



i am well accustomed to 'normal' chemtrailing, as i have been observing it for the last 3 years.


And what is normal chemtrailing?



phage: 'They are just clouds and normal vapour trails from aeroplanes'


Quite simply put "YES", they are..



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 





They've been doing it more often at night for the past year or so.


At night you say?

How do you see them doing this at night, is there some type of night vision device involved?

You do understand that contrails will form at night also..



Again I am interested in how you kinow that they are spraying something from a plane that is other than contrails coming from the engines?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

phage, i have said it before but you are a dangerous entity.

chemical trailing is an absolute reality and if you do not recognise this, then you are not looking
or you are living in an area which isn't being interfered with. or you are lying.


You sound like you're probably a danger to yourself.




a few weeks ago a black plane in the shape of the letter A flew directly over
my head leaving a huge trail across the sky. i do not live in a militarised country
(ireland) but that's the first time i have seen anything like that here.
i am well accustomed to 'normal' chemtrailing, as i have been observing it for the last 3 years.


You do know that the UK is spitting distance from Ireland. You do not need to live in a 'militarised' country to see military aircraft, they occasionally overfly other countries too you know. Are you trying to suggest that Ireland does not have its own armed forces? We even have an air force, believe that?
(Also, how do you know that the plane you saw wasn't really in the shape of the letter V, and flying backwards?)



what's your take on 9/11 again phage?


Hilarious the way the conspiracy prone always try to gauge their peers by questioning their views on 9/11.

"Ignore that guy.....he doesn't even think 9/11 was an inside job!!!!"




(Roll on the accusations, "paid gov shill" "illuminati henchman" "reptilian errand boy" "globalist clockwork elf")

edit on 2-3-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes
 


Thank you. I am very glad you got the tone and message.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliquandro
 


In order to attempt to offer the scientific reason for what you witnessed, the aircraft altitude is an important factor. Not exact, but were they just taking off, or were they already at their cruising altitude? If they were at or above 25000 feet, then the dynamically changing conditions would offer an explanation of why you might see a trail from one plane and not the one that looks very close. In air travel the planes will not be at the exact same attitude to allow each some room, so the conditions might be very different in just a few hundred feet.

If they were lower, you have an anomaly that isn't easily explained and should be looked into. If you see the same thing, I suggest a video and looking up the flight aware information along with conditions. That stuff can be done in just a minute or two with a PC. And you would give the debunkers a good challenge.

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ibiubu
 


If I am ever curious to know anything more about aluminium, I am coming to you.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


But if you look at it like this:

We know for a 100% fact that those white lines that form behind planes can either disappear real fast, or they might hang around all day, depending on the conditions where they were formed. (if you have any evidence that this in an untrue statement, please present it)

We know that contrails look a lot like clouds, they are just long and skinny. (like a dinosaur neck)

We know that they act just like clouds. (again, if you have evidence of that being untrue, please present it as well)

Knowing all that, how it is even remotely possible that the clouds and lines in your picture must be chemtrails? they sure look like contrails.

And here is the real kicker. In order for them to be "chemtrails" they would have to have "chemicals" in them. What chemicals are in them and how did you come to that conclusion?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by niceguybob
 


I must be strange or something. For some reason, I tend to at the very least, READ THE OP, before I comment in a thread. It's very helpful in keeping me from looking like an ass. Doesn't always work, but it sure helps.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I've had heated arguments with a colleague who will simply not accept that contrails can and do persist.

This is a common view held among chemtrail believers.

When I tried to show my friend some scientific data relating to this question in particular he dismissed it as propaganda, he wouldn't even read any of the material.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Those are the people that deserve to live in the paranoid world they created. It's hugely frustrating, hence the reason for this thread, but you see it here all the time. You present facts that go back to the 1940's and they refuse to accept undisputed facts. I have learned so much in debating this subject. It's fascinating if you just do a tiny bit of research then you can grasp all the knowledge that some of the very well informed members are offering.

Smile and hand them an umbrella.


edit to add:
I even pointed one guy to a "library" since he thought all the websites had been infiltrated by "them".
edit on 2-3-2013 by network dude because: added thought.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
what i want to is why do some trails last for hours, while others dissipate just as fast as they were created. maybe altitude?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
what i want to is why do some trails last for hours, while others dissipate just as fast as they were created. maybe altitude?


Conditions. if that part of the sky had the right amount of saturated air and temperature, then it would make a long persistent contrail, then if that same plane goes through a patch of sky where the conditions are different, the trail might stop, then start again, or stop altogether.

And they are all created.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Yes, I have evidence. It's pretty obvious that cancer incidence has risen alongside industrial pollution over the last 150 years. Unfortunately, we didn't track cancer rates until 1973. Still, you can see the rising figures if you search for it.

Cancer Incidence





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join