Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explain to me this...

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Can they fill the AWAC dome with fluid tanks instead of heavy radar equipment??

This is a good question....




posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


But could you source tons of CREDIBLE chemtrail evidence, or is it going to be patents, laws written by people a lawmaker owed a favor to, and pictures of ballast tanks?

The difference is you can find peer reviewed science, and samples with contrails. Chemtrails tend to be "I can SEE the difference!"



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Nope. Even if they could, the legs that support it are only big enough to run wiring through, not piping. That means you'd be spraying out the dish, which would look nothing like a contrail.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
When will people learn anything that TankerEnemy posts and says are chemtrails is an outright lie.

Like the 6000-feet altitude claim in the video. An absolute and outright, deliberate lie. Yet the gullible "chemtrail" hoax believers take his word as gospel.

The "chemtrail" phenomena is a hoax. And "chemtrail" believers are further being hoaxed by the likes of TankerEnemy.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 





More trails above our heads than ever before. That's the only thing that's changed. Why do we even have a forum for these phenomena if they aren't worth considering in light of the evidence for the technology and the apparent existence of the phenomena? M'eh.


More planes equals more contrails.

If you notice this forum is also dedicated to geoengineering, but because most people (chemtrail believers) like to lump geoengineering and chemtrails into one we have this forum.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 

Pollution from jets on runways at airports is an ongoing problem. It is a way of attesting to the health effects of planes on the ground anyway. Data about that aren't easily presented. Found this.

Health effects from jet exhaust around airports

Not something we find the chemtrail crowd addressing though. Why is that?

Could it be they want to distract from the real health issues associated with the real chemical compounds in the very jet exhaust they claim contains some mysterious component we can never put our finger on?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Tucket
 


But could you source tons of CREDIBLE chemtrail evidence, or is it going to be patents, laws written by people a lawmaker owed a favor to, and pictures of ballast tanks?

The difference is you can find peer reviewed science, and samples with contrails. Chemtrails tend to be "I can SEE the difference!"


This is my point. Neither side will provide credible evidence. Contrailscience.com is just proving the existence of contrails. He is not disproving chemtrails.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The legs only support the shell/haul of the dome, what is in the dome is anchored to the frame of the plane.....



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 





so what you're saying the conditions changed for one plane and the other next to it was fine...

some people wouldn't believe in anything even if it punched them in the face...


Why is that hard to believe...



It does happen.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


And they're stressed to very specific tolerances. That dish had to be as light and aerodynamic as possible for the plane to even get off the ground. Add the weight of a liquid to it, and if the legs don't buckle the plane might not even get airborne.

But let's say you could, why would you? The radar dish on the E-3 would have next to no capacity. It's relatively tiny.
edit on 10/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 


The video you posted here is BS as well...

No one has the ability to just mosey on up to any cockpit on any plane (especially a passenger plane) and start asking questions...then, to have the supposed pilot ask if the interloper was filming, then not ask if the camera was off...PUHLEAASSE!!!! Totally laughable claptrap posted by some hoaxer...

Until someone can place the video in context (i.e., time, date, place, airline, airport), it is a piece of garbage...



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 





This is my point. Neither side will provide credible evidence. Contrailscience.com is just proving the existence of contrails. He is not disproving chemtrails.


Hard to disprove something that doesn't exist.

I think one side brings more credible evidence than the other care to guess which side does what?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tucket
 





This is my point. Neither side will provide credible evidence. Contrailscience.com is just proving the existence of contrails. He is not disproving chemtrails.


Hard to disprove something that doesn't exist.

I think one side brings more credible evidence than the other care to guess which side does what?


Again..proving my point.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Tucket[/b
Contrailscience.com is just proving the existence of contrails. He is not disproving chemtrails.

Actually, he is, if you take a look at the entire site. That website debunks every single claim made by "chemtrail" hoaxers, and he provides sources as well, if I remember correctly.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


And aside from a complete lack of understanding of aviation what proves they might be real? At least with contrails we have samples to back up the science.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 


speaking as an aviation consultant. Contrials are NOT water on the wings.

instant fail



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 




I could source tons of chemtrail evidence as well..


And not one bit of it would hold up to any sort of scientific analysis...



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 


ahhhhhhhhh THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!'

The first lin in that videos say s "in formation" at "6000 ft"

Forst they are NOT in formation, and NO WAY is that 6000 ft. That is at least 25000 ft, and the other is even higher. Considering RVSM rules meaning at least 1000 ft vetical sep, you can clearly see they are on the same track but an very different altitudes!! this does NOT a formation make!



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by Klassified
 

Pollution from jets on runways at airports is an ongoing problem. It is a way of attesting to the health effects of planes on the ground anyway. Data about that aren't easily presented. Found this.

Health effects from jet exhaust around airports

Not something we find the chemtrail crowd addressing though. Why is that?

Could it be they want to distract from the real health issues associated with the real chemical compounds in the very jet exhaust they claim contains some mysterious component we can never put our finger on?

This is a very good point. Though I don't think most "chemtrailers" are trying to distract from this issue. I think they are just unaware there is a real threat, other than the one they are pointing at consistently. This one has more supporting evidence, and is a much better place to start, than one that has very little verifiable evidence at the moment.
edit on 10/6/2013 by Klassified because: clarity



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


IIRC it also doesn't go into effect until 29,000 feet, so if they're lower than that the separation required is even more.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join