Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

a look into what is going on with our government.

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I figured the start of the thread would be a good place to start, clever huh?

Have to say I am unimpressed. First of all, the whistleblower has stated several times that her revelations were about ground based exposure to harmful elements and were not related to chemtrails. Is the eord of the person herself not good enough for you?

I also saw her state herself that contrails quickly disappear while chemtrails linger. This tells me that she has no atmospheric or aviation knowledge and so is hardly credible anyway if she does start talking about chemtrails. What sort of evidence do you require to prove that point? I am guessing you have been provided with links in the remainder of he thread to records of wartime persistent trails?

Secondly the video "Chemtrails, the facts" is anything but. Take the shot in the first few minutes with two trails in the sky, one labelled contrail, the other Chemtrail. How do you debunk a vapid claim? There is no way anyone can look at a trail and know, the human eye works on light, not chemical composition. Why do you find that claim compelling?

Lastly, oh dear, it's the very video I was referring to in my earlier post, a USAF KC-10 filmed by another USAF crewman who thought it would be hilarious how the chemmies would wet themselves over it and how right he was. You have seen the original I take it? You know what those things under the wing really are, yes? You know about aerodynamic contrails? Have you thought why Chemtrail photos always show long thin trails that spread over ime but this is coming off the wings in sheets and so looks different anyway?

This is really easy stuff that you could have debunked for yourself with 5 minutes and google. The fact that you haven't, but consider it to be compelling evidence does not inspire me.




posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


If it's added to the fuel, it's going to cause the engine to wear much faster. Jet engines are extremely sensitive to things that aren't supposed to be there. Any additive that goes through the engine is going to burn anything that's supposed to be sprayed to a crisp, and leave buildup on the engine parts. That's going to cause them to wear faster. Then you have an engine that is supposed to last for let's say (just for the sake of argument, I'm not saying these are real numbers) 15,000 hours, suddenly lasting for less than 10,000. That's something on the order of $20M an engine for some of these engines. That's a HUGE chunk of change, especially if the number of planes people claim are spraying really are. And for what? Combustion chambers in jet engines can run well over 2000 degrees. That will destroy anything organic, and over 90% of non-organic materials at least.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
youtu.be...

go to 7:30 mark. i dont see any contrails....


furthermore, If they do stay in the atmosphere with the ice crystals, shouldnt the dissipate some? Explain how they stay for such a long time. and i have read, and heard repeatedly that these ice crystals have more than just moisture, soot, metals from the fuel. Where do those go? jet fuel is cancerous. So we can burn it in the atmosphere and forget it? No, it finds its way to clouds who in turn rain, which in turn finds its way to us. It might be an acceptable amount for one plane, but when the sky is full of them with this issue, Dont you think that multiplies the amount of chemicals in our environment? metals dont float in air, for long, it still finds its way down here.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mactheaxe
I have provided scientific papers to the effects of the metals,

Papers on the effects of alkaline earth metals have no bearing whatsoever on anything coming from the sky. Alkaline earth metals are natural to the earth. They are in the air, water, soil, and food we eat.

You can't prove "chemtrails" exist with papers on the effects of naturally occurring earth elements.



Originally posted by mactheaxe
I have given documents showing studies in california with high amounts in their environment

And since these elements occur naturally in nature, and are also by-products of water treatment, gas, oil, and metal production, there are far too many things on the ground to look at as the source of the "high" amounts before looking up to anything coming from the sky.

You can't prove "chemtrails" with studies done on "high" amounts of elements in the environment when there are too many things to look at on the ground as sources.



Originally posted by mactheaxe
I have showed you jets with nozzles spraying

No, you showed a video of a jet dumping fuel, and producing contrails. You were even given a link to a thread that has a video to prove as much also.

A jet dumping fuel does not prove "chemtrails" exist.



Originally posted by mactheaxe
I have shown you a whistle blower with documentation to back up her claim.

And I provided a link to my post proving her completely wrong.

You can't prove "chemtrails" with someone who has been proven completely wrong on every point, e.g. a person with no credibility.



Originally posted by mactheaxe
I OBVIOUSLY dont know where to look.

I don't understand why you don't know where to look. Google has tons of websites and scientific papers written on barium, aluminum, strontium, etc. They can tell you everything you need to know, and will verify everything I've stated here.

You can also visit the Contrail Science website to learn about contrails and view tons of images of contrails. And they even have a contrail forecast map on their front page for the U.S. so that people can see where contrails are forecast to form, or not.


And as an end note, if "they" were "spraying" anything, it would be all over everything outside. Like your car, playset in the back yard, your house, trees. Anything outside that sits under the sky all day and night will have these "chemicals" all over them. Not just the ground.

So, these "high" amounts of chemicals also have to be on other objects outside to even suggest that those chemicals are coming from the sky.


The best way to prove that something might be being sprayed is get several samples of contrails in the sky to get the chemical makup, then get several independent samples of objects outside on the ground and have them tested for any chemicals. Then you have a hypothesis or theory.

Until someone does the above, this "chemtrail" subject will always remain a hoax or a myth.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And we all know the government is careful with its spending.....Maybe the effect outweighs the risk? They put additives in the fuel we use dont they? They say its good for the engine, but is it? could they be seeding our own engines with this stuff? i mean, they do have a monopoly with this stuff, and they seem to be very protective over it. Thats just a what if on the gas, but not on the govt spending.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Jet contrails form when the water content of the jet exhaust freezes in temperatures of -20 and colder, such as it always is at 30,000ft plus. When the relative humidity is low this ice sublimates back I to the atmosphere and the trail vanishes. When it is high enough the trail sits around as the air is already holding all the water it can (simplified)

Aerodynamic contrails form due to pressure differential, they aren't frozen, but are water droplets that form in the airflow of the wing in moist air as the air pressure of the wing is suddenly gone, you can see the same effect when opening a can of coke, for example, when the pressure is suddenly released, they tend not to persist very long.

Read also this page, I posted a picture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 14-4-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mactheaxe
go to 7:30 mark. i dont see any contrails....

Do you see how far above the clouds those planes are? Contrails only form at altitudes that clouds can form at when the conditions are favorable for the formation of clouds.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


That's because aerial refueling is done at an altitude where they don't leave contrails. Contrails obscure visibility, as found out by WWII bomber pilots. They had to routinely fly a different course back to their base, because their own contrails has spread out to become clouds and obscured their visibility so badly.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


Except that commercial planes are claimed to be involved too.

Either way, it would be pretty easy to find out. Watch the budgets of both the airlines and the military. If you suddenly see a ton of extra engine work being done by either, then something isn't right. But we're not seeing that happening. The mission rates are as high as ever for the military, and if they were changing more engines, they'd be in trouble with the number of tankers we have, versus the number required. Same with all the airlift in the military.

Yes, there are additives in the fuel. To prevent ice from forming during flight, when they're at -34 and colder. So, yes, they are good for the engines. To see what happens when ice forms, look at the British Airways 777 that hit the ground short of the runway. They pushed the throttles up, and there was a blockage in the fuel lines, and they got no power, so they impacted the ground short of the runway.
edit on 4/14/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mactheaxe
youtu.be...

go to 7:30 mark. i dont see any contrails....


Nope. So how high are are those planes flying?



furthermore, If they do stay in the atmosphere with the ice crystals, shouldnt the dissipate some? Explain how they stay for such a long time.


If the Relative Humidity of the air they are in is higher than 60% with regard to ice the ice crystals have nowhere to go so the trails just sits in the sky until that condition changes. It may even promote the formation of natural cirrus if he RH is high enough.


and i have read, and heard repeatedly that these ice crystals have more than just moisture, soot, metals from the fuel. Where do those go?


These are the aerosols that the ice forms on, they just hang around up there with all the other aerosols at that height.


jet fuel is cancerous. So we can burn it in the atmosphere and forget it? No, it finds its way to clouds who in turn rain, which in turn finds its way to us. It might be an acceptable amount for one plane, but when the sky is full of them with this issue, Dont you think that multiplies the amount of chemicals in our environment? metals dont float in air, for long, it still finds its way down here.


When it burns it's chemical composition is changed, this is where the water comes from. Concern over pollution is one thing, but is far from a deliberate spraying operation, that's the part that is nonsense.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
How about this?
youtu.be...



Are these fuel dumps? And if so, dont you think that affects us a population too? Where does the fuel go? It doesnt disappear.

And if it is the latter, Have you seen a plane with dumps right there?
youtu.be...


What is the purpose of these planes? What hospital needs that much barium? who needs so much aluminum oxide? And what are all that on the plane used for? If its not the chemicals ive stated, what are they? Are they good for us? or are they harmful?



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


I'll have a look at those, but you aren't responding to the points being answered, your merely throwing up more videos.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
First video is nothing but "citizens claim" and "appears to be". It is literally a video about nothing. How can that convince anyone of anything? Just cos some people imagine it?

Second video won't load, is it the correct link?



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
youtu.be...

more testimony from a (supposed) pilot.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


Fuel vaporizes. That's why they dump above 10,000 feet whenever possible, so that it doesn't reach ground level.

Second video, the first plane, looks like a fuel dump to me. That's usually where the dump nozzle is, out towards the end of the wing. Sometimes it's on the wingtip itself. That actually looks similar to the one on a Dreamliner.



All of those look like fuel dump nozzles. It crashed part way through, but every one up until that point was a fuel dump nozzle on the wing of the plane.

The 2:55 mark looks like a Hawaiian Airlines 767. That's aerodynamic contrails there, not a fuel dump.

Of course the 3:22 is the standard Evergreen 747 firefighting plane that's trotted out all the time.

Then it's a few minutes of normal contrails.

edit on 4/14/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


im not sure at what altitude theyre at, they should be offering some sort of trail though.

Seems to me they realize that it burns too, however, if it did, these are metals, not chemicals. secondly. the video ive postes shows that they do use other means, like a retro fitted plane with those drums of goodness knows what. So the engine theory, yes, implausible to me. introducing the chemicals in the back of the engine in the turbine wake, more plausible. It seems they take advantage of the natural occurrences of that altitude in relation to humidity and ice forming.

Whichever way you want to cut it, Its happening. through just bad stuff in fuel, or intentionally. 25,000 flights in the us add up when it comes to the chemicals being released.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


why fuel dump? seems a waste. there seem to be no problems that need fuel to be dumped time and time again. why not use the fuel dump nozzles, theyre already there.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


Yeah, seen that. He is talking about cloud seeding, silver iodide candles have been used to seed rainclouds for decades, it's not chemtrailing by any stretch of the imagination. A small plane seeds a rainclouds with silver iodide and it rains within 30 mins, no trails, nowhere near 30k ft, no jets. It's a different subject and the "secret" filming was utterly pointless, they will tell anyone because it's a business.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


They ARE using the fuel dump nozzles. But if they have a problem that requires them to land and they're too heavy, then they have to lighten the load. Can't throw anything overboard (people get upset if you throw them out to lighten the weight), so fuel gets dumped. If you land too heavy things like landing gear collapses, and damage to the airplane (such as the back snapping in two) tend to happen. So you have to get lighter, and dumping fuel is the only way to do it.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


Well you've assumed the cliched position of a typical chemtrailer it seems.

Post something, get it shot down, post something else, get it shot down again...

It kinda reminds me of this...






new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join