Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Two chemtrail tanker jets almost collide with fed-ex commercial aircraft"

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

the answer may be to stop all those people flying 10 holidays per year tax them to death why should my day be ruined by somebody in a plane 2 flights per year max then




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


Who said they're all passenger flights? In 2011 Europe moved 14.5 million tons of air freight. The US-Asia route accounted for 1.8 million tons coming to the US, and 1.6 million tons being moved out of the US in 2011.

Cargo flights are down slightly the last couple of years, but through 2031 are expected to grow 3+% a year.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

thanks for that info zaphod as you say this problem is only going to get worse for the people on the ground like everything else the technology seems to be taking us backwards .

maybe putting it back on boats might help i paid $27 dollars to get a book from america not long ago .

sometimes change is not for the best



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
im not a meteorologist so i cant comment on weather fronts. I know that ive seen this happen in the summer time many times when the sky was perfectly clear in the morning and only after the sky was full of contrails did the sky turn a milky white color. Id be interested in knowing how on these occasions at the typical altitude planes fly a weather front could alter the contrails in that manner. I was always under the impression that at 30,000 feet the temperature didnt vary a great deal. Also in spite of the sky turning milky white there was no other changes in the weather from the day before when the sky appeared more 'normal' , it was still about the same temperature on the ground and no rain. Like i said, ive seen this happen year round and its not always the entire sky, sometimes it happens in patches, would a weather front be able to cause the same phenomenon in a small patch of sky when its surrounded by blue sky everywhere else?


as to your second point....aluminum IS a common element but perhaps you didnt know that free elemental aluminum is NOT. It must be mined and refined.

en.wikipedia.org...

as to your argument about planes flying above 30,000 not having a correlation with aluminum and other metal concentrations in the top soil....im not sure what mechanism would prevent heavier than air particles from eventually reaching the ground.


apparently there are very normal people (that is, not bezerker paranoid conspiracy nuts) with concerns about these incidences of increased particles in the environment....and it begs the question 'how is it getting there?'

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

so Zaphod....maybe youre right about some things....maybe youre not. I'm not here to claim with the authority of some great learned PHD in all the relevant fields that i KNOW this or that....and frankly people who speak in that manner dont win many arguments. What i am here to do is ask the best questions i can and point out that it appears there is indeed something very wrong with the environment and the high probability is that some of it has to do with the meddling of government/business interests.......by the way, AS USUAL. Because...when have you ever known the gov or big business to not screw with things when it was within their power to do so? To believe they wouldnt doesnt make one a conspiracy theorist, it makes one a realist with a view of proven history.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


The problem at this point is that people have gotten so used to the convenience of being able to order something, and have it at their door in a couple of days due to air cargo that the chances of going back to boats is slim.

The jury is still out on what happens with contrails and damage to the environment. But what is known is that new jet engines leave a massive amount less in damage than the older engines did. And they're only going to get cleaner as technology advances.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by instigatah
 


Any time you see more persistent contrails, and you see the skies clouding over from contrails like that, it almost 100% certain that there is a weather front close enough to affect them. You may not see the effects from that front, but it's there. The front creates the extra humidity required in the air for a persistent contrail to exist, and to spread out.

As for the aluminum and others in the ground samples, yes jet exhaust could cause a minor blip in the amount of aluminum. To put it simply, even a dedicated sprayer aircraft couldn't carry a lot of material to spray out. The heaviest fuel load I ever launched a KC-135 with was 210,000 pounds, which comes out to around 31,000 gallons of fuel. That included fuel being offloaded into aircraft it was travelling with, as well as the fuel it was going to burn.

No matter how you try to do it, you're limited to the maximum take off weight of the aircraft, which means you aren't going to be able to cram a lot into it, to leave those huge trails going all the way across the skies, or to create a huge increase seen in the soil samples.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Saying there is no evidence for chemtrails is a bit disingenuous. It's a nice argument seeing as I can't go get a jet equipped with atmospheric equipment, fly up there and get behind one of these planes with huge amounts of lingering trails to say, "SEE RIGHT HERE IS THE PROOF!"

We have to test the ground, and wait for whistle blowers. One such person who was in the air force did blow the whistle:




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 

Yes correct,

Use the youtube button and copy the ID right after the v parameter in the URL.
URL: www.youtube.com..., (Demo URL)
Then copy the: "oDAw7vW7H0c".



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Sure you can. There are a number of companies that will lease a sampling plane. But instead of getting evidence the choice was made to make a YouTube movie with no evidence but circumstantial.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





Saying there is no evidence for chemtrails is a bit disingenuous.

Nothing disingenuous about it. Do you have actual evidence?

It's a nice argument seeing as I can't go get a jet equipped with atmospheric equipment, fly up there and get behind one of these planes with huge amounts of lingering trails to say, "SEE RIGHT HERE IS THE PROOF!"

Why? The people who are making a lot of money peddling this malarkey are certainly capable of renting the plane and pilot. WHY WON'T THEY!?!?

We have to test the ground, and wait for whistle blowers. One such person who was in the air force did blow the whistle

The whistleblower in your video needs to get her facts straight:

Chemtrails involve the deliberate spraying of hazardous materials into the atmosphere that goes back over 30 years. Also known as cloud seeding, the U.S. Government has been spraying harmful chemicals and heavy metals into the atmosphere for numerous reasons.

Link
Aside from moving the goal posts back and forth (i.e., chemtrails are defined as cloud seeding), there are numerous other inconsistencies in this single page of material I provided. This is not to say this well-intentioned person cannot continue this crusade. All she need do (if she is very truly concerned about the welfare of all concerned) is to present her evidence to this concerned person.

Still waiting for someone to actually do this. I will be the very first person to come back and say I was a ignoramus once this is performed and the outcome of the case is determined in favor of the plaintiff.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





As for the aluminum and others in the ground samples, yes jet exhaust could cause a minor blip in the amount of aluminum.


How? I see nothing mentioned in this paper concerning aluminum, elemental or otherwise.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





We have to test the ground, and wait for whistle blowers. One such person who was in the air force did blow the whistle:


You may want to check this out before saying she blew the whistle on chemtrails...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Btw she has admitted that she wasn't blowing the whistle on chemtrails...

metabunk.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





Saying there is no evidence for chemtrails is a bit disingenuous. It's a nice argument seeing as I can't go get a jet equipped with atmospheric equipment, fly up there and get behind one of these planes with huge amounts of lingering trails to say, "SEE RIGHT HERE IS THE PROOF!"


And why not...You can start here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 





Saying there is no evidence for chemtrails is a bit disingenuous.


And saying they exist without any evidence to prove they exist isn't ?



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Notice I said "and others", as well as "a minor blip".



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
Saying there is no evidence for chemtrails is a bit disingenuous.


In what way?

The only "evidence" fro chemtrails is people say "that's a chemtrail" - and anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be denied without evidence.

So "no it isn't" is a perfectly adequate response.



It's a nice argument seeing as I can't go get a jet equipped with atmospheric equipment, fly up there and get behind one of these planes with huge amounts of lingering trails to say, "SEE RIGHT HERE IS THE PROOF!"


Some people can.

Why don't you and all like minded individuals get together and hire them??



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


You want to know something? regardless of the OP, the aircraft are too fecking close in that video, and I give a shiite...not what the experts say, or what systems there are in place. Commercial jets are dumball airborne Dodge Chargers that go like stink and don't do corners very well, or have much in the way of brakes since that is counter intuitive. Then you have, Feet, Metres, GAT, and military and all the in betweens leaving not much room for emergencies.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Nevertheless, a separation distance of double the required amount does not constitute a near miss, except perhaps in the minds of tabloid headline writers and conspiracists lacking anything real to talk about.

The claims made in the video about what it depicts are lies, even the aircraft types are utterly wrong. Anyone announcing themselves to be convinced by it, as happens with depressing regularity on here, are making themselves look rather uninformed and their opinions on chemtrails will therefore be viewed in that same light.

Just something to think about when posting so called "evidence".



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Before they cut the minimums to 1000 feet they did testing for years to determine if it was safe to do. TCAS gives you several minutes of warning as long as you don't ignore it. With the ADS-B system it will be even more warning. They might not be a sports car, but even 1000 feet is safe. You can't exactly block off 5000 feet of room for separation.


(post by TheMagus removed for a manners violation)




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join