Chemtrails Photo and Research Thread!!!!

Originally posted by QBSneak000
reply to post by wonderworld

 

Spraying for west nile at 30,000 to 40,000 feet would be useless. They would have had to do more of a crop duster type of spraying at a much lower altitude (a couple of hundred feet or so at the most). As for the rise in cancer etc. couldn't that be more from smoking, additives in foods, aspertame, etc?

Im not denying that the governments don't do horrible things, I'm just saying that to do it by "chemtrails" again wouldn't be cost effective nor an effective means of damage due to the heights and atmospheric conditions at those heights involved.

Where did I ever say they sprayed at 30,000 or 40,000 feet? I didnt. They do fuel dumps at that altitude and who knows what else they dump.

Did you read the thread here on ATS called Dead birds falling in NJ? I dont have time to search but it's interesting to read and happened recently.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for explaining the plume cloud. Yes maybe you can learn as well. Are you suggesting the government has NEVER sprayed a chemical? In the US or at War?

reply to post by wonderworld


that is a bad ass storm front. I would love to have seen that one coming in. Nice pic. And as far as the what if thing for the "debunkers", nobody is denying that TPTB have sprayed things in the past. It has been proven, reported on, videoed, and cataloged. What is fantasy is that when Joe Nobody from East Nowhere takes a picture of a few contrails in the sky just after TWA flew past, and claims "They" are trying to poison him with chemtrails. There are impressionable kids who are going to go through life sounding like an idiot. All because a few people here claim that "they" are out to get you. Nobody is going to spray things to harm you in the air, in the jet stream, at 30,000 feet, not knowing where the spray will affect due to changing variables in the wind. If you believe that, you need to look into the hollow earth thing. Maybe they are going to start spraying in there next. THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!

It's very interesting that today it is raining, as is the case most days I see a lot of spraying... Leads me to believe they are doing cloud seeding but still have my doubts about how safe these practices are to us humans on the ground...

Please lets see some more user photos and not just ones that have been posted 1000 times already... I really want to learn more about these things and the rate of spraying around the country...

[edit on 21-7-2009 by iamjesusphish]

reply to post by wonderworld

Originally posted by wonderworld

Where did I ever say they sprayed at 30,000 or 40,000 feet? I didnt. They do fuel dumps at that altitude and who knows what else they dump.

"They" don't intentionally dump fuel at 30,000 or 40,000 feet. Do you know how expensive that junk is?!?

Only reason to ever dump fuel is for an emergency return to landing, shortly after take-off, in order to lighten the weight to Max Landing Weight.

In a dire emergency, when getting on the ground ASAP is more important, then they will land overweight. The extra manitenance checks are worth the lives possibly saved.

Here's video of actual fuel dumping. This case, a mechanical problem meant that the flight could not continue to destination, so not really an emergency. But, procedure to get down to landing weight:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for explaining the plume cloud. Yes maybe you can learn as well. Are you suggesting the government has NEVER sprayed a chemical? In the US or at War?

'Roll' cloud. 'Shelf' cloud. 'Arcus' is the Latin designation.

When did I 'suggest' the government "has NEVER" sprayed???

We all know of Vietnam, 'Agent Orange'. For instance. Sprayed low. Very low. Same with fire-fighting procedures. Cloud seeding to induce precipitation. Etc.





[edit on 21 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by iamjesusphish


Good for you ..

Keep it up and don't pay attention to the school kids just learned about hot/cold water in school, they just feel they need to share that breakthru sciense some where else. !!!

Maybe they could tell us why there is barium and aluminiium in the jet fuel aswell..

ConTrail? Talk to the hand !!!

For all the posts that deny the existence of chem trails here is one of many youtube videos of weathermen discussing them. Military in many instances accepts the responsibility for them.




www.youtube.com...

reply to post by wonderworld


I know you didn't specifically say they sprayed at 30 to 40000 feet. I am just going by the contrails I see in the photo's provided by members here in this thread. As someone else pointed out, its near impossible to tell exactly how high the clouds are..... unless you manage to tag it with a laser ceilometer or you are flying at the exact same height.

A cloud / contrail may seem low to our eyes (maybe a few hundred feet) but in fact may be several thousands of feet in the air. My point is that any kind of chemical spraying over a populated area at that height would be utterly useless due to the height released and atmospheric conditions. Maybe of they calculated drift, air current (always changing and usually different at various heights) plus a plethora of other mathematical variables..... Still would make it next to impossible.


As for the increase in thyroid cancer...... What about cell phone use? could they not account for this recent spike?

reply to post by extr5


Wrong, he states that the radar is being jammed by "chaff" which is normal military radar jamming tech. I believe its tiny strips of aluminum.

Not once does this weather man say "chemtrails"

Correct me if im wrong but I believe that "chemtrails" are defined differently by the pro chemtrail theorists.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by QBSneak000]

So he did not mention the word chem trail. Guess its not chemtrails.

Good work.

Smart move from Chemtrail skeptic to claim the Chemtrails dont get sprayed in surten altitudes, I call that a dead givaway as to that person is lying..


.Liars.

reply to post by ChemBreather

Maybe they could tell us why there is barium and aluminiium in the jet fuel aswell...

Well...this "school kid" right here is 53 years old, and has over 30 years flying experience.

SO...why don't YOU go ahead and tell everyone about "barium and aluminiium" (sic) in the jet fuel!! MmmmmK?

Because, I'd really like to know how that can be, without changing the density of the fuel.

See, fuel on passenger jets is uplifted by the gallon (or by litre), per the meter on the fuel truck or other fueling device...just llke at the automobile petrol station.

HOWEVER, once in the fuel tanks, quantity is measured by probes that calculate density and level, in various locations situated throughout the tank. It is displayed to the Flight Crew in Pounds (or, in Kilograms...depends on the customer who operates the airplane).

Fuel that has been somehow (not sure how this would be accomplished) 'impregnated' with "barium or aluminum" would weigh significantly more than unadulterated fuel, and would throw off the readings.

NOT TO MENTION (but I will) the effects of the combustion process precludes having this "barium and aluminum" in the fuel...it would clog the fuel filters, it would clog the injectors, in the heat of combustion it would precipitate out in the burner cans, it would coat the turbine blades, ruining them in a very short time, and there would be residue on the exhaust system components.

Read this Yahoo Q & A:
answers.yahoo.com...

Here, looky, looky at this. It's the syllabus outline for JUST the fuel system of a Boeing 777. Of course, only the outline is free, online. To get the entire course, with details, you would have to purchase it.

I include it, though, for those who are interested in just how complicated the typical jet's fuel system is, and why any contaminated fuel would be noticed almost immediately!!!

www.geaviationsystems.com...







[edit on 21 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ChemBreather



Whoa man, chill out.

ATS is a debate forum is it not? you present your argument, I present mine, no? So what's the point of calling people who disagrees with you, liars? I can understand perhaps you write with emotion and I can admire that. Heck, I've done that myself from time to time, but lets try to have more of a civilized debate without the name calling shall we? There really isn't any need for it.

I don't think there is anything in the T&C stating that I have to agree with the OP at all nor do you have to agree with what I have to say and I can respect that.
I reply to these topics because, like you, I am passionate about the subject. We're just on opposite ends of the coin no?

I am just pointing some of the physics and complications involved in spraying a toxic chemical at height.

reply to post by wonderworld


Look like normal contrails from commercial air traffic to me





Everyone who has studied these for the past 80 years say that are formed from deadly dihydrogen monoxide crystals. If you think they are wrong you need to provide evidence to refute all these decades of research. And no, a youtube video doesn't count. And be wary of non sequiturs

Originally posted by QBSneak000


Correct me if im wrong but I believe that "chemtrails" are defined differently by the pro chemtrail theorists.

Chemtrail believers have no accepted definiton of what chemtrails are, argue mutually exclusive ideas, and vary them according to whom they are discussing them with. Like a hydra, once one theory about chemtrails is disproved another pops up - usually presented by the same person who's first theory has been shown to be wrong.

The only consistencey is that chemtrails are not dihydrogen monoxide crystals - as asserted by all who have studied them properly over the past 8o years. But no-one has yet presented any evidence that so-called chemtrails are not dihydrogen monoxie crystals. They they are fond of presenting non sequitur arguments.

reply to post by extr5


Im not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that its chemtrails he is talking about in the video when he clearly states "Chaff"? I mean no disrespect, I am just curious.

Is it because he says something to the effect that the military being up to something?

CHAFF

So he did not mention the word chem trail. Guess its not chemtrails.

Good work.

Thanks, I thought so.

Im not going to assume you were being sarcastic with your comment but I suppose if you were, I would simply say that a video of a weatherman talking about his radar being all screwed up because of the military dropping CHAFF does not make it proof of chemtrails. Youtube is not a great source of PROOF for any subject.




[edit on 21-7-2009 by QBSneak000]

[edit on 21-7-2009 by QBSneak000]

reply to post by ChemBreather


while I really enjoy your avitar, I can't understand your point. Chem trails are an impossibility on a regular basis for a bunch of reasons.
1. Cost to get the bad juice in the air.
2. improbability of knowing where the affected area will be.
3. imporbablility of knowing whom will be affected.
4. baltent disregard for the fact the if they were chem trails, they aren't hidden very well.
5. who would stand to gain by this?
6. why is it if "they" are spraying killer chems on us are we living longer than ever before?
7. that pesky link I gave a while ago about the air quality actually getting better.

Now you try to convince us that there are logical answers to these perplexing problems and then we have us a discussion.

edit to add: the barium and sulfates you asked about come from the stacks you see attached to factories. the ones with black smoke coming out of them. they have instruments that monitor how much bad stuff comes out and they have to report those numbers to the EPA.
SHHH. its a secret though.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by network dude]

reply to post by QBSneak000


The other important point about this story, and other cases where chaff has shown up on rainfall radar, is that in such cases, nothing is visible from the ground. So quite clearly it's not what people claims to be chemtrails.

Additionally, contrails over the UK are claimed to be chemtrails, yet they never, ever, show up on rainfall radar. And yes, I do look at the radar every day



[edit on 21-7-2009 by Essan]

reply to post by network dude


Hey, network dude, you forgot one....wish I could find it again.

Another poster had an interesting point: He calculated the amount of "barium" needed just to "spray" 50 square miles over fifty World cities...

Turns out it would take about one-half of the entire World's production of barium to accomplish that task.

I'll go looking for his post.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't think that will be nesessary. I think the OP is digesting the info provided. If one person per thread walks away and thinks about the scientific and common sense part of the Chemtrail theory, then there will be one less embarrassed person when the planes fly over. Nobody needs to be screaming "everyone get your gas masks on, they are spraying us again!!!!"

But were the stupid ones.