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.

 

Explain to me this...

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 





I could source tons of chemtrail evidence as well..


Please do, but i bet it wouldn't be something we haven't seen before.




posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 


The contrails are actually worse than the pollution put out by jet engines. I've read a couple of studies that say the effect of the contrails put out today could possibly be worse than all of the emissions put out by aircraft since air travel began combined. They just don't understand the effect they have on the environment, and short of a week plus global shut down, won't.

Agreed. Something to do with sunlight and ozone acting as a catalyst for the chemicals in the exhaust forming even more dangerous compounds which, eventually...

rain down on our heads. There are links and threads here about it, sorry I am not an archivist...


They just don't understand the effect they have on the environment, and short of a week plus global shut down, won't.

Anyone who was outside day after 911 will remember how clear and blue the skies were. All the airlines were grounded. I had not seen such a blue sky since my childhood.

Environmental impact be damned on these threads though... the chemtrail clan sees only "mysterious mists" up in the sky...

I for one want to keep maintaining these types are industry supporters that omit the truth and focus only on some mystery. Have you noticed the campaign that recurs on ATS periodically that seems to never learn and only embraces the mysterious "spraying"? Propaganda...



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 


You mean the brazilian embraet FO with most likely less than 1000 flight hours on an ad hoc basis, and no real insight into the engineering side of the industry?\


HELL YEAH!



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 





Again..proving my point.



And what do you consider credible evidence?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I think you mean 19000 ft, after that is RVSM territory



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


They reduced it then. When it first started it was 29,000. I tend to keep up more with the technology side than the FAR side of things.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


All the studies I've read talk about the net warming effect of them. It's disproportionate to the size of the trail since they can expand into high cloud cover.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I stand corrected. A retired pilot dedicates his time to debunking chemtrail hoaxes. He has "credible" sources as well from "peers" in the scientific community. "Scientists" who couldn't have possibly been bought, because, you know, they're like, scientists. Exceedingly smart people with morals, high ethics, honesty and such.

See my point yet?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


And yet at least he bothers to post journals that have samples in them. Unlike the chemtrail crowd who have nothing to prove they existed in the first place.

I'm always amazed at how a chemtrail believer can make these claims but it's on the skeptics to provide evidence they don't exist. But a lack of evidence that they ever existed is somehow evidence they exist.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Tucket
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I stand corrected. A retired pilot dedicates his time to debunking chemtrail hoaxes. He has "credible" sources as well from "peers" in the scientific community. "Scientists" who couldn't have possibly been bought, because, you know, they're like, scientists. Exceedingly smart people with morals, high ethics, honesty and such.

See my point yet?


I doubt they'll see any point mate... some people are just like that.. can't force them to be open minded.. they rather believe their own things... some hundred years ago it would be the same people who would stone you for saying the earth is round... cause like SO MANY SCIENTISTS CLAIM ITS STRAIGHT... sad...
edit on 6-10-2013 by Alda1981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 


I'll believe in chemtrails, and even post a thread admitting I was wrong as soon as you prove they exist.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Tucket
I stand corrected. A retired pilot dedicates his time to debunking chemtrail hoaxes.

Actually, the Contrail Science website is just a centralized place of information concerning contrails. But it is not needed. Science and meteorology have debunked "chemtrails" for decades and generations, even before someone made up the fake word.



Tucket
"Scientists" who couldn't have possibly been bought, because, you know, they're like, scientists. Exceedingly smart people with morals, high ethics, honesty and such.

See my point yet?

I see that you could be implying that everything we know about science and meteorology could be "bought", and everything we've known for the past century of powered flight, science, and meteorology could all be wrong, just to please the "chemtrail" crowd.

In other words, all science for the past 100 years is wrong, and the "chemtrail" believers are correct because they can see the trails with their own eyes.


Sorry, but that's not the way the real world works. There's no physical, scientific, or forensic evidence to suggest "chemtrails" can even be hypothesized, let alone be real.

Having more contrails in the sky, and/or people not understanding how and when contrails can persist or not, does not mean that someone can just make up a new word and start spreading the "chemtrail" hoax. Yet, that's exactly what has happened.

Only gullible people who haven't been educated in, or don't comprehend the sciences will embrace the "chemtrail" hoax. The rest of us will debunk the hoax with facts and known science.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
 


All the studies I've read talk about the net warming effect of them. It's disproportionate to the size of the trail since they can expand into high cloud cover.


Blocking sunlight is one aspect. Here is one towns battle with living near an airport. Goes into chemistry of sunlight, ozone and jet exhaust...

www.closetheairport.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Tucket
 


And yet at least he bothers to post journals that have samples in them. Unlike the chemtrail crowd who have nothing to prove they existed in the first place.

I'm always amazed at how a chemtrail believer can make these claims but it's on the skeptics to provide evidence they don't exist. But a lack of evidence that they ever existed is somehow evidence they exist.


lack of evidence...

I got you a video with two planes side by side. one stops spraying the other doesn't. Somehow its the atmosphere that stoped being CONTRAILY..

then its cause both of them are not actually that close...

then they are close again because the one was refueling the other...

it all sounds really scientificly n stuff.. i am really intrigued by all this knowledge thrown on the table...



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Ahh I thought you'd never ask
. For myself, credible evidence is everywhere. Ambiguous? I just watched a video on a different thread recently uploaded on ATS. Talks about how GM crops, chemtrails etc are tied into the transhumanist movement. The video provides evidence for chemtrails. Note: you will NOT accept this as credible evidence. I understand that, which is why I'm not bothering with links. But for myself, it just adds to the proof pile.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 



I got you a video with two planes side by side.


How did you determine the planes were "side by side" from a video?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 





I doubt they'll see any point mate... some people are just like that.. can't force them to be open minded.. they rather believe their own things...


Why is it when a debunker doesn't believe chemtrails exist they don't have an open mind?

Just to help you out a little...debunkers don't say there isn't a possibility that in the future they may exist, they are saying there is no evidence that proves they are spraying chemtrails at the present time.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


See my point yet?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Alda1981
 


I never said they were refueling. But it didn't matter if they were or not. They both use totally different engines. As shown in the picture posted earlier, they could have been side by side and one would leave a contrail and the other wouldn't.

But that HAS to mean one is spraying and the other isn't, right?



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 


But you are doing the exact same thing. You talk about credible evidence but accept that chemtrails are real, without credible evidence, such as samples to show what they are.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join