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.

 

Documents Reveal “Chemtrails” Originated at Department of Defense

page: 9
42
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Aldakoopa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Anyway, you have made a believer... or maybe an unbeliever in this case, out of me. However, that being said I still like to keep an open mind; So, to me, the fact that it is even remotely possible that they may be spraying something,


To be honest it has never been impossible to "spray" from aircraft - I think the first patent for spraying dates to the 1920's, and I was born in New Zealand where there were extensive crop dusting experiments in the 1940's and 50's.

smoke from aircraft was used in WW2 by the allies in at least 1 major airborne landing, and I believe on D-Day too although I have no reference for it. I did read the other night though about the USSR using smoke from aircraft, and this video (actually from 1923 not WW2 as stated) clearly shows a/c laying smoke:



plus there are any number of times aircraft have sprayed insecticide we all "know" about Agent Orange beign sprayed in Vietnam, etc

so there is no question that aircraft CAN spray chemicals.

However eth chemtrail hoax is that the condensation tails coming from aircraft engines are some sort of conspiracy when they don't even LOOK like chemical trails in the first place.

Pretty much every debunker here would be against spraying of chemicals too - and I'd be more than happy to see eth pollution of jet exhaust reduced and fewer contrails formed - especially those sky spanning ones that expand into cloud sheets.

But they are not geoengineering, are not secret, are not deliberate attempts to do anything, do not come from secret tanks or additives, and are not anything more than condensation from combustion of hydrocarbon fuel and it's subsequent and entirely predicable and natural consequences.




posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Aldakoopa
 


When you ask about military aircraft not leaving contrails you mention ones using a bombing range. This would lead me to guess they are too low to leave any.

Any aircraft, whatever they are, will create a contrail if they fly in the right conditions for them. It's impossible to avoid unless you can stop water freezing.

The USAF invested in a contrail suppression system for the B-2 stealth bomber but it didn't work. It now has a warning system that tells the crew when contrails might be left so they can change altitude.

As for regular military jets, I've seen plenty leave contrails when they are at cruise height.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Aldakoopa

Now, while the subject is still contrail oriented, I have another question. Why don't military jets seem to leave contrails? Or at least, they don't seem to leave persistent contrails. I realise that they probably don't WANT to leave contrails because that would make them easier to spot, but I see many military jets frequently over my area since I'm in-between a military base and their bombing range. I tried googling it myself, but sadly I've searched too many conspiracy-related terms and just typing in "contrails" it gives me all "chemtrail" related pages... lol

Goes to show how Google does "personalise" your experience.


When you think about it, there aren't actually all that many military jets flying - IIRC there's something like 5000 civilian jets in the air at any one time - pretty much 24 hrs a day - a short haul civilian jet might do 10 flights a day for 8-12 hrs total duration.

I know that some 777's literally spend 2/3rds of the hours god gave in the air - averaging 16 hours a day over several years including breaks for maintenance!!

Even the USAF does not fly THAT much!

So one of the reasons you don't see a lot of contrails from military jets is that they don't actually fly much in the scheme of things!

But you can find some evidence of them doing so - eg



And one of my favs: (although not strictly just a jet....
)




edit on 14-11-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Somehow off-topic but...
Although I lean towards skepticism.
Conpiracies have been documented (not all of them) troughout history
Existed and always will exist in a society made from enemy individual groups
Conspiracy theories now, are about possibilities
and I ask, Isn't there the slightest possibility some groups in society trying to push their own agenda?
IS it impossible?
In an extremly competitive world, in which one'' stepping'' over others for his own interest...
For ex.
one ship owner sinks his own old ship on purpose, killing a few of his workers to reseve insurance (a classic Onasis tactic)
Isn't that a conspiracy against his own crew?
things like this happen all the time

A bigger scale conspiracy? the rise of nazis in Germany

On a global scale, would anyone be absolutely 100% sure that there is nothing going on behind some curtains?

I didn't know what to make about chemtrails before, but Snowden might be telling the truth!

Geoengineering and weather modification is a fact. Why couldn't they alter the jet fuel so it helps a weather modification purpose.
If thats the case then there are plenty of possibilities, the chemtrail conpsiracy might be true, I am not saying it is, but it could, people have suggested it in the past so why not?
edit on 14-11-2013 by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I`m sorry, I dont trust this one. The Guardian has stated that they got all information Snowden had and that they still are prossesing tons of materials from it, and if its not the Guardian that make this statement, I wont trust it...



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Give me 10 mins and I make a site claiming "proof" that Snowden just revealed a secret chemtrail program in co-operation with the US gvt, Santa Claus and Monsanto.

Believe me, I am a VERY GOOD writer.

Would you then also believe it because I can cite a source where I put up the article? I could even write a piece and put in on an "established" government site (.EDU site) and make a press release out of it as well.

Would you STILL believe it?

Do you believe anything you come across "on the internetz"?



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
on 12 November i made a reply post in another thread...challenging anyone to come up with an earlier date for first hearing the idea of Chemtrails....


here's my post, copy


 

 



St Udio
So... just when did You (by You, i mean all posters here on ATS) first hear about chemtrails ?



i first heard the idea back in the summer vacation period (June-July-August) of 1961 0r 1962 can't quite remember exactly without deeper thought & recall

I was at Hershey Pa. on a dairy farm belonging to the Milton Hershey Foundation... the evening sky was cherry red and there were several contrails of pure white pencil thin smoke way up there, like today's typical jet contrails...

a classmate said to another classmate that it would be very easy to put a virus powder in thos aircraft that would eventually settle down to the ground and cover many hundreds of square miles with some airborne chemical or biological weapon.... thats when i first heard about the idea of chem-trails... during the height of the 'cold war' in the Kennedy years


Oh... it must have been 1963, the classmate was named B Lundquist (yeah like the sports announcer that's still covering sports since the 1960's on CBS sports)


 

 



this post cites documents from 1990 that chemicals or things like aluminum particulates were being used to help reduce global-warming...

well my personal experience of first hearing about 'chem-trails' in 1963 still remains the earliest
(albeit- undocumented) reference or possibility that aerosols were being deployed in our skies
in secret


the global-warming campaign became the reason for Jetcraft releases of Aerosols after the 'cold-war' and 'civil-defense' programs faded for being an active part of our national consciousness...

so, imho...chemtrails was an evolutionary spike that was only in experimental stages in the late 1970's-thru- the present, being redeployed under various names &/or Agencies, for nearly 50 years now



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

St Udio
this post cites documents from 1990 that chemicals or things like aluminum particulates were being used to help reduce global-warming...


You win.

But could you show us the article that claims "chemicals or things like aluminum particulates" were actually being used?

I was under the impression that as of yet, all of that was ideas and hadn't been done yet.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr1Akula
 


Yes I agree with all of that. BUT, when someone posts a picture of a contrail and claims to know its a chemtrail, or that it cannot be a contrail because they don't persist or that a picture of a tanker or test prototype is a picture of a sprayer, and that because of all of this anyone who doesn't believe is an idiot or a sheep, that's not conspiracy theory, that's just lying, and that is what I stand against.
edit on 14-11-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
There has to be some reason why most contrails today cross the entire sky then spread
out and cover the sky in thin blankets of cloud.
I`m not sure........but...
What if whoever is doing this has done it so the public get used to it.
Plus they accept it as harmless. As no proof has been brought forward to say there`s any chemicals
coming down from these con/chemtrails.

What if they decided to spread a virus at a future time by spraying it from airliners and it
spread in a similar fashion as to what we see in our skys today ?
What if a virus that had similar symptoms to Ebola was used ?

Could that happen ?
Just a thought.....I`m no scientist...



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
It HAD to be done. There was no time for opinion polls and panel reviews. Nobody would sign off on it without substantial scientific evidence to show it was not harmful, so nobody did.

Sometimes there are situations that force you to ask for forgiveness rather than permission and this is a pretty solid example of that.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: lambros56




There has to be some reason why most contrails today cross the entire sky then spread out and cover the sky in thin blankets of cloud.

Not sure that "most" is accurate but, yes there is a reason contrails do that. The same reason it happened in the 1970s and before:
You can read about it here:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...

It's the same reason it's been happening since planes could fly high enough to produce contrails.
From 1919:

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.
www.thefreelibrary.com...



edit on 11/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambros56
There has to be some reason why most contrails today cross the entire sky then spread
out and cover the sky in thin blankets of cloud.


Yep - more flights, with engines that are more likely to make contrails, and the rest is atatmospheric physics:


Cirrus clouds have been classified by height since studies on these clouds began.
Unfortunately, this method of classification does not take into account condensation
trails, or contrails. As a result, there is no consensus concerning whether contrails can be
categorized as a type of cirrus cloud or are a different phenomenon altogether. Cirrus
cloud formation differs from contrail formation, but other properties, such as their
thickness and occurrence, are very similar. Although contrails usually disappear without
significantly impacting the atmosphere, occasionally contrails may act as a generating
mechanism for cirrus clouds. The nuclei used for cirrus clouds and contrails originate
from different sources, but both phenomena go through similar freezing processes as they
develop.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join