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 want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


However, add rocks(minerals, pollutants), and it becomes condcuctive.
If the rocks dissolve, yes. Are you saying the gel dissolves in the air? It evaporates? Are you sure about that?

But when something which is more dense than something else is on top of that something else, it falls through that something else and does so until the density matches. It doesn't just sit there.

You see, different levels of the atmosphere like to have the same pressure. That's what causes updrafts and downdrafts and wind.
edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Absorption is irrelevant to persistence.


According to the WIKI LINK ON CCN you're wrong.

I tend to believe what the link says rather than you.

I provided a link proving my point.

Why don't you provide a link that supports your statement.



There are many different types of atmospheric particulates that can act as CCN. The particles may be composed of dust or clay, soot or black carbon from grassland or forest fires, sea salt from ocean wave spray, soot from factory smokestacks or internal combustion engines, sulfate from volcanic activity, phytoplankton or the oxidation of sulfur dioxide and secondary organic matter formed by the oxidation of VOCs. The ability of these different types of particles to form cloud droplets varies according to their size and also their exact composition, as the hygroscopic properties of these different constituents are very different. Sulfate and sea salt, for instance, readily absorb water whereas soot, organic carbon and mineral particles do not. This is made even more complicated by the fact that many of the chemical species may be mixed within the particles (in particular the sulfate and organic carbon). Additionally, while some particles (such as soot and minerals) do not make very good CCN, they do act as very good ice nuclei in colder parts of the atmosphere.


hygroscopic properties = the ability to ABSORB
edit on 3-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Since you seem to be stuck on the word absorption.
No. But you seem to have been.

Here are some highlights for you. From your source:

Water requires a non-gaseous surface to make the transition from a vapour to a liquid.



When no CCNs are present, water vapour can be supercooled at about 8°F (-13°C) for 5-6 hours before droplets spontaneously form (this is the basis of the cloud chamber for detecting subatomic particles).

en.wikipedia.org...

We are talking about very low temperatures (way below what is talked about above). CCN's are not even required. And at these temperatures the liquid state doesn't really exist. Vapor to ice. The opposite of sublimation.




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



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





But when something which is more dense than something else is on top of that something else, it falls through that something else and does so until the density matches. It doesn't just sit there.


Now we are getting somewhere. Just remember that the opposite is also true, and this is actually what is interesting in this case. A lower density particle will rise until it finds equilibrium in density, and HEAT. Remember Aerographite also absorbs 95% of sunlight... making it pretty hot.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I am not sure that the spirit of your post is likable. you sir seem quick to point out a members past when we all know that information and knowledge can change our once made up minds, to have someone point out a belief in this fashion is selfish. I once believed that my father could beat up all you alls fathers. I am very glad that my brothers dont remind me of this all the time.
you have taken the time to post and I hope read. (or preferable read then post) so please add to the thread rather then drag us away.
I will wait to thank you................ Painfulhead
ps. I may have some bumb post you can dig up.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Painfulhead
 





i will let this rest a bit because I am starting to fade. all this talk about and around is makin my head hurt. state what ever it is and lets get on. I feel an impasse coming with he said I said she said. I will be back and hope some point are made. thank you all for your participation,................... Painfulhead


I clearly have made my point and provided the supporting evidence to back it up.

I'm done wasting my time with the wanna be Mr Know-it-all pretending to be dumb and playing his little circular argument game.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Painfulhead
 


I have added input to this thread.

I pointed out some of the lies made up by so called "truthers" and asked for a similar list of the debunkers.

Ask yourself, why so many lies from truthers??



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





How can they do that? We are talking about temperatures below -40º. Ice forms, not water. Ice covers those particles. How can those particles absorb ice?


The particles just came out of a jet at extremely hot temperatures.

There is a period of time that they are so hot that they would melt any ice particles.

Allowing them enough time to absorb the water before it freezes again.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Ask yourself, why so many lies from truthers??


I thought your crowd likeds to call us "chemmies"

and "truthers" are people exposing fraud in the 9/11- OS

Get your derogatory labels correct please.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Plenty of lies from that camp too.

But nice work on the deflection there.

Why so many lies?
And again, evidence of debunker lies would be nice too please.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


The main lie is of course

"There is no such thing as chemtrails"

Then there is the constant acting by debunkers. Where they pretend to innocent and ignorant of previous discussions and repetitively ask the same questions over and over again.

Then they constantly says

"Go fly a plane and collect a sample"

As if,
, it were so simple. Knowing full well it's completely impossible to arrange a flight with the equipment needed on such short notice.

The numerous lies about predicting contrails when it is clearly an imperfect science that has so many flaws even NASA needs school kids to be spotters for them.

Any system to predict things that were wrong as often as the Appleman chart is would normally be rejected by science. Yet the persistent contrail crowd tries to treat it as the holy grail of weather anomalies.

I could go on and on about the tactics of lies and disinformation used by chemtrail deniers.

Pick any tactic on the disinformation checklist and they use them all.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


your right and I have to say I was wrong. thanks for your interest and contribution.
the lies that you post about are worth pointing out but do little to sway convictions. speaking for myself as I sift through the info or dis-info things come up (leads) that one follow to eather a helpful or harmful conclusion. as time passes inlightenment may change yet again the conclusion,
good one...........................Painfulhead
edit on 3-3-2013 by Painfulhead because: spelling



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 




There is a period of time that they are so hot that they would melt any ice particles.

Allowing them enough time to absorb the water before it freezes again.

If the particles are hot, why would water vapor condense (remember, you used the wrong word when you meant condensation) into water on them? Don't hot things cause water to evaporate, to turn into water vapor? Seems that something has to be colder than the air containing the water vapor in order for water to condense. Like a glass of ice water for example. Don't see much condensation on a cup of hot coffee or even a room temperature glass of water.

But lets assume you're right about that. So the particles absorb water vapor then the water vapor condenses into liquid water then the liquid water freezes into ice.
What prevents that ice from sublimating? Why does it persist?

And what causes the "chemtrail" to spread and become more dense? More CCNs? From where?

edit on 3/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Chemtrails to me are a total myth, they don't make any sense.
If they where trying to kill us off wouldn't they start by putting something in the water ?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Raffles
 


your post sir is the best one so far. in so few words you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
why would any human do something to deliberately hurt another? I know that fluoride is put in the water. is it bad?
I didn’t think so but now I cant say for sure.

are they spraying something for some reason? my heart hopes not but if its happening and fluoride is bad then its the same people doing both....... I guess
cool one man.............Painfulhead



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Painfulhead
 


W T F ?




Are you serious?

People who have actually done some research on this topic do not support the theory that the purpose of chemtrails is for depopulation or soft kill.

That concept is a fringe extremist view point. Most likely propaganda devised by co-intel-pro. The general theory that is accepted by the informed researcher is that the purpose is geoengineering and/or weather modification.


edit on 4-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Painfulhead
 


I havent read any of this thread besides your op, star and flag for your honest take on the debate side of entrench. Idiologies, as your description is very appropriate, and somewhat disturbing, yet there it is.

I, for my part, dont ever get involved in these threads, I hardly ever stop by them, dont know why I stopped by yours, but glad I did.

I have not heard enough evidence to convince my critical mind they are real, but I also have some reservations about dismissing this out of hand, as I know that there are many experiments involved in exactly this area.

Some are for weather manipulation research, such as cloud seeding etc.. others are for chemical reaction tests, to see how certain chems interact with high altitude presures ( or lack there of) and temps, when certain chems are dispersed in different concentrations and mixes, both the above examples are completely benign for the most part, and are done for the right reasons.

However lets be real here, if they are really doing this, even to the detriment of all, it woukdnt be the worst thing TPTB have done, not even close.

So I see motive, and opopportunity. A couple of dangerous things, for us unfortunately, as they usually do any and everything they can get away with.

Dont let the haters get ya down op, I argue, ajd insult even, somtimes on accident, others on purpose, those I think are intentionally ignorant about a subject they are trying to discuss, even though their ignorance is obvious to anyone who has more than rudimentary kjowledge of the subject.

So I cant complain too much, I am just as guilty, if not more so.

Thats why I have 3400 stars and 4 applause on 1300 posts, yet only 5600 ats points, I have been in the negative a couple of times, and rightly so, as the mods always warn me to stop, I am just a dick from time to time.

Dont take it too personal bro, we are all the thing under a horses tail from time to time, and this in no wah marks who we are all the time, just somtimes bad days, or a subject that one feels strongly about, which can ratchet up the emotions.

Just remeber, some of us suffer from moments of absolute genius, tempered with the idiocy of being human, it takes it tole on us all from time to time.

Besides op, I appreciate your nononsense style, stick around, we are better because of our diversity, and removing any of it takes away from the whole.

I am not religious, but doesnt the bible say somthing about it taking all kinds to make the world go round or somthingnof the sort?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raffles
Chemtrails to me are a total myth, they don't make any sense.
If they where trying to kill us off wouldn't they start by putting something in the water ?


I am not on either side here, as I dont have enough evidence I trust to make my mind up either way.

However, I assure you they are putting stuff in the water, it is called flouride, and it is poison in high enough consentrations, and has been linked to reduced brain function at afore mentoned high concentrations. By high concentration I mean parts per million still, it is just so potent, that it doesnt take much.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Yeah i am aware of fluoride in water in certain areas, and of course in toothpaste.
But has anyone ever died from it ?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Raffles
 


What if I told you chemtrails aren't meant to kill anyone?

Have you ever heard of Geoengineering ?




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join