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.

 

Chemtrails a HOAX.... So who is responsible and Why are there so many sources of Information?

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

nergalbanda1
reply to post by mrthumpy
 

Wow That article is very impressive. I tried looking up who had started the Chemtrail dren to explain to the Op but couldn`t find his name but you have found something even MORE indepth then what I had awhile ago to debunk this laughable theory. Good on you.


What do you think about this?
gmi.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Pay attention to page 12 and 13!


edit on 12-11-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2013 by Mikeultra because: 13




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

No about 1994-1995 IS really when the theory started to come about due to people getting scared of contrails due to lack of knowledge of science; paranoia and a general lack of commonsence.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

No about 1994-1995 IS really when the theory started to come about due to people getting scared of contrails due to lack of knowledge of science; paranoia and a general lack of commonsence.


Your time frame is about right, that's only 2 years after 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. That's when there was a consensus that the world was melting and something must be done! Geo-engineering! aka chem-trails.
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 12-11-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

Ok those are theoretical papers which are a model of a WAY to GeoEngineer but not evidence that it is actually put into practice. There are thousands of papers like that in government offices that are just a model pf a possibility to do so.
When the chemtrail theory came out it never was about GeoEngineering at all as it started to change to that in some circles as there was no real evidence for the origional theory. Yes I did pay attention to page 12-13 like suggested.

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: left out a page number referance

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: Didn`t go over spelling correctly



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

Would that be the pont in time where the global warming theory was flip floped from the global cooling theory? Because in the 1970s the environmentalists were screaming that we were about to go into another ice age and we need more greenhouse gases to prevent that catastrophy. If It is I thank you for that tidbit as I was trying to figgure when and why the alarmist environmentalists changed their opinion like they did.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

Ok those are theoretical papers which are a model of a WAY to GeoEngineer but not evidence that it is actually put into practice. There are thousands of papers like that in government offices that are just a model pf a possibility to do so.
When the chemtrail theory came out it never was about GeoEngineering at all as it started to change to that in some circles as there was no real evidence for the origional theory. Yes I did pay attention to page 12-13 like suggested.

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: left out a page number referance

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: Didn`t go over spelling correctly


All those thousands of research papers were done for nothing you think? I see the 2 sides like this. I'll try to pick a name for those who don't believe. Is deniers OK? No offense meant by that term, I don't like using de-bunkers because that would infer that there was bunk. I'm a believer. Anyway the deniers seem to be focused strictly on contrails not being anything abnormal. They seem to reject the idea that a unknown substance could also be released into the normal contrail, creating the chem-trails! It may not be burned through the engines, it could be dispensed through nozzles on the wings near the engines.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

Would that be the pont in time where the global warming theory was flip floped from the global cooling theory? Because in the 1970s the environmentalists were screaming that we were about to go into another ice age and we need more greenhouse gases to prevent that catastrophy. If It is I thank you for that tidbit as I was trying to figgure when and why the alarmist environmentalists changed their opinion like they did.


1992 is when the whole world got together and conspired to do evil together! It's the United Nations master plan of destruction. Agenda 21 and sustainability, no more cars for anyone. You walk or ride a bike! Weather modification is in there, and putting crap in the air is a big part of the plan. Population control is a big part of it too. Crap=chem-trails. I don't know why chem-trails is treated like a dirty word...



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

That`s fine; personally I can`t stand the word `bunk` anyways. The thing with adding an extra chemical to the fuel would cause great disaster due the fuel ratios having to be precise mixtures for jet-liners as far as I know. I say for jet-liners as those are the ones most pointed to for dropping the chemicals on the populance. Plus the sheer amount of those in on the cover-up would be astronomical; there would be much more then the occasional whisltblower from time to time.The other thing is it would be very reckless not to mention useless for the chemical to be dropped that far up in the atmosphere as the winds at airline altitudes are much different then those at ground leval and the chemical cannot be guranteed where it will fall at those kind of hights.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

It`s treated like a dirty word as it`s one of the easiest to explain away. Not to mention the theorists cant`t even decide what they do or what chemicals they contain which does not give much credibility to the theory. Really it changes from month to month and theorist to theorist. Please people; can we get at least some consistancy please?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

That`s fine; personally I can`t stand the word `bunk` anyways. The thing with adding an extra chemical to the fuel would cause great disaster due the fuel ratios having to be precise mixtures for jet-liners as far as I know. I say for jet-liners as those are the ones most pointed to for dropping the chemicals on the populance. Plus the sheer amount of those in on the cover-up would be astronomical; there would be much more then the occasional whisltblower from time to time.The other thing is it would be very reckless not to mention useless for the chemical to be dropped that far up in the atmosphere as the winds at airline altitudes are much different then those at ground leval and the chemical cannot be guranteed where it will fall at those kind of hights.


Oh they don't care where it falls. They want universal coverage. Ever see a Sherwin-Williams paint commercial? It's like that. I'm not 100% sure of the delivery technique, it has to be in the fuel. Some special bio-jet fuel, like they're forcing the Navy to use on the carriers. It costs 4x as much, but it meets the "green agenda" United Nations bs. I'm working hard on this, I'll find out one day what it is.

edit on 12-11-2013 by Mikeultra because: visual



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

That would be just politically unsound as it would fall on other countries (some of which are NOT in on the conspiracy and see that as an act of war of which no one really wants that (at the moment) as it wouldn`t be economic at the moment especially for the U.S. (I say U.S. as that`s where alot of the proponents of the theory seem to be) with how far stretched the troops are at the moment. Only someone who was insane would actually be ok with a plan like that as even if they want to start WWIII with chemtrails what about their own families caught in the ensuring war? No matter how deep a bunker is it still wouldn`t save people from WWIII as it would be a scorched earth scenario. Actually with how uneducated some politicians are I could see someone being ok with that action due to no insight as to the consequences.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   

nergalbanda1
reply to post by mrthumpy
 

Wow That article is very impressive. I tried looking up who had started the Chemtrail dren to explain to the Op but couldn`t find his name but you have found something even MORE indepth then what I had awhile ago to debunk this laughable theory. Good on you.


Yeah Jay Reynolds has done some excellent work in debunking chemtrails. It's a shame the believers don't know the real reason thay they suspect the white lines in the sky are something out of the ordinary.

All they have to do is acually bother to learn a bit of science but it's either beyond them or they are too lazy to learn. Sad really.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Mikeultra

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Mikeultra
 

Ok those are theoretical papers which are a model of a WAY to GeoEngineer but not evidence that it is actually put into practice. There are thousands of papers like that in government offices that are just a model pf a possibility to do so.
When the chemtrail theory came out it never was about GeoEngineering at all as it started to change to that in some circles as there was no real evidence for the origional theory. Yes I did pay attention to page 12-13 like suggested.

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: left out a page number referance

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: Didn`t go over spelling correctly


It may not be burned through the engines, it could be dispensed through nozzles on the wings near the engines.


You'd think after all this time with all those flights by all those planes seen by all those people these nozzles and associated equipment would have been noticed. Odd that...



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Mikeultra
Here is a screen capture of a Wikipedia photo of chemtrails..........



There you go, exactly what I was talking about. Why is it a picture of chemtrails? Because it says so?

It bears a strong resemblance to a photo I took myself on a day where I had tracked every flight that made that pattern. For it to have been a chemtrail pattern in would have needed to involve British Airways, KLM, Delta, Easy Jet, Aer Lingus etc etc on domestic, international and intercontinental flights, all converging over my house, all on flights which are regular scheduled passenger services and with, of course, take off and landings occurring from and to different airports all over the world.

Did othe person who took the picture on your post provide data for the aircraft types, routes, operators etc, or was it just a 'picture of chemtrails'?

Do you find that idea credible? Or could it be normal traffic and weather? People dont half put faith in some fairy stories.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Mikeultra


What do you think about this?
gmi.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Pay attention to page 12 and 13!


edit on 12-11-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2013 by Mikeultra because: 13


And from the very end of that paper



Where does it say tried tested and works? Looks to me like a theoretical work.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

waynos

Mikeultra
Here is a screen capture of a Wikipedia photo of chemtrails..........



There you go, exactly what I was talking about. Why is it a picture of chemtrails? Because it says so?

It bears a strong resemblance to a photo I took myself on a day where I had tracked every flight that made that pattern. For it to have been a chemtrail pattern in would have needed to involve British Airways, KLM, Delta, Easy Jet, Aer Lingus etc etc on domestic, international and intercontinental flights, all converging over my house, all on flights which are regular scheduled passenger services and with, of course, take off and landings occurring from and to different airports all over the world.

Did othe person who took the picture on your post provide data for the aircraft types, routes, operators etc, or was it just a 'picture of chemtrails'?

Do you find that idea credible? Or could it be normal traffic and weather? People dont half put faith in some fairy stories.


Can you post your photograph please?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   

network dude

Korg Trinity

network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Wait a minute. You have not seen a shred of evidence to disprove the theory?

The theory is based on the white lines in the sky.


I guess this is where the debunkers have it all wrong and maybe why they get so frustrated...

Chemtrails are as much to do with the while lines in the sky as black rubber rings have to do with driving.

The chemtrail subject is about Geo-Engineering and driving is about getting from point a to point b....

Totally different argument....

Korg.


the above is exactly why there will never be conformity with this. You think something completely different than most, but you are convince that you are right.

Geo-enigineering needs to be watched. Chemtrails are fantasy. But chemtrails are only dealing with the white lines in the sky. Hence the name, chemTRAILS.

good job on muddying the waters.


I don't think it's muddying the water at all.. if anything it's cutting to the chase.

The other arguments are in fact by productive of the main purpose such as what exactly is being sprayed and the health implications. But I think there can be little argument that Chemtrails are about Geo-engineering.

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


This is the one I was thinking of;



I have hundreds more, as I carried out a bit of a study myself when people were claiming on here that chemtrails (pictured in this manner) were being left by unmarked, unidentified aircraft.

Here also is a thread where I addressed the claims that grids etc are a sign of chemtrails, you have to scroll down for the second post as it took me a while to get the time to do it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 13-11-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

waynos
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


This is the one I was thinking of;



I have hundreds more, as I carried out a bit of a study myself when people were claiming on here that chemtrails (pictured in this manner) were being left by unmarked, unidentified aircraft.

Here also is a thread where I addressed the claims that grids etc are a sign of chemtrails, you have to scroll down for the second post as it took me a while to get the time to do it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 13-11-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)


Thanks. Can I ask do you recall if the day clouded over as is typical with these
type persistent lines?
If the aviation industry knows about this effect, as it surely does, would it not make
sense to try and lessen the possibility of this unwanted disturbance to normal weather
patterns by getting the different flights to fly as close as possible to and parallel to
trails already left by previously passing aircraft?
Surely that makes sense, and would be easy thing to implement.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 



If the aviation industry knows about this effect, as it surely does, would it not make
sense to try and lessen the possibility of this unwanted disturbance to normal weather
patterns by getting the different flights to fly as close as possible to and parallel to
trails already left by previously passing aircraft?


What makes you think the contrails left by jets is an "unwanted disturbance to normal weather patterns..."? You realize the only reason why you see the contrails at all is because of the current weather conditions, correct?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join