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.
originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
I'm going to regret even replying to this thread, as I have no interest or opinion in/of contrails/chemtrails AT ALL, but it seems to me the premise of your OP is that "A plane can only be rigged to spray 'chemtrails' in one fashion. Let me reiterate that before anyone tries to put words in my (beautiful) mouth.
Are you implying that if plane A is spraying from the vicinity of it's engine(s), then plane B could not possibly be rigged to spray from a different location?
If you can't be civil DO NOT REPLY.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy
You seem to be trying hard to derail a thread showing that Geoengineering watch has been deliberately dishonest.
Both sides are dishonest.
LOL and yet only one side has repeatedly been caught out lying. Odd that
Both sides accuse the other of lying. The contrail side is accused of covering up (lying about) the mystery spraying.
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As a side note, that must have been exceptional circumstances for them to allow them to dump fuel over populated area and more inportantly, the guy filming should have gone back out in a few hours to show that nothing landed anywhere near him
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
As a side note, that must have been exceptional circumstances for them to allow them to dump fuel over populated area and more inportantly, the guy filming should have gone back out in a few hours to show that nothing landed anywhere near him
During an in flight emergency, such as this one, the fuel dumping is secondary to ensuring the plane doesn't crash into populated areas, or even underpopulated areas, and turn into a fireball. The emergency protocol involves dumping fuel to a certain level to allow a safe landing.
In this filming instance, it also would have been nice to show how long the trail persisted in the air. (since it was low altitude, even the jet fuel would have dispersed quickly and become invisible after a few minutes.)
.
i don't think anyone claims that jet exhausts don't contain " chemicals "
do you agree or disagree with graphic ???
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude
Let me get this straight…
jet exhaust and fuel are not toxic?
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Did we REALLY need proof that Geoengineeringwatch makes up stuff to push their conspiracy theory?
I thought we need proof that jet exhaust isn't harmful, just water.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude
make your own thread about air pollution. if you want to bring all your fears into this forum, to be on topic and not have your posts flagged, you will need to explain why your pollution has anything to do with contrails. (or chemtrails)
Yah, I get that pollution isn't allowed in the debate. But the 'debate' is about the chemicals (or not) in jet exhaust… isn't it?
originally posted by: 3n19m470
So there can only be one method to disperse substances into the air? Is that the premise of this thread? Not that I'm a believer, but...