Study finds only 'mystery planes' produce persistant 'contrails'

reply to post by marsha law


Btw, I wonder if Barium is a part of the alloy of the Jet Engine itself? I'm SURE aluminum is.

If so, it would fall under my social evolution hypothesis... In this case you find a means of transporting people from point a to point b in a quick order but realize that the extreme heat produced by your propulsion systems is polluting the air. Causing you to use medicines to cure it. Forcing the evolution of your species.

Eventually we will look like the Greys. Never leaving our houses unless on an interstellar mission.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Very clever for an ex soldier.

No thoughts on the reason why the persistent contrail producing planes fly anonymously?

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Dude, I read your comment and that's what I got out of it. I was asking a question to clarify my understanding of your statement. I have no ill feelings for people in the military. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems as though you misunderstood me.

This debate will go on add infinitium....

And I highly doubt anyone will be swapping positions.

Who's to say chemtrails are even ment to affect any human populus?
Who's to say they don't know that releasing them from a certian position in the jet stream will travel thousands of miles perhaps to their intended target?
Who's to say that they are only released at an altitude from 30,000 ft?
Who to say its not atmospheric testing or sheilding against global warming from the sun or such?
Who's to say they want any chemicals for landfall?
What about strengthening some atmospheric layer such as the ozone or something?
Seems there could be many possibilities to conduct such tests and programs, and even the possibility there isn't any.

I'm not saying every jet liner or even 1 out of 4 to 4000 is doing this. Or even commercial jet liners are involved.

I'm just stating with the vast documented evidence of mass non consenual testing done to the public and all environments Sea, land, and Air by governments and militaries across the planet is.......

...That it would be ignorant to suggest there wouldn't be a possibility of such experimental tests conducted through the medium of "Chemtrailing"..
"High or low aerial dispersal"...whatever you want to call it....

So are you denying the possibility? Now how plausible could this scenario be? I think it's plausible they're doing some form of testing in which they need to use the medium of chemical dispersal in the atmosphere to render results and data.....as for what exactly I don't know I can only speculate.


[edit on 26-11-2008 by GodshipForAll]

Oh, it is certain that governments have tested "cloud-seeding" in the past. However, the volume of thoughts related to the "chemtrail" idea just don't make any sense to me...
However, as with all of my contributions to this website, I am waiting to be shown wrong. That is what I'm here for. To learn.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by marsha law


Look, I've just read this site at a passing glance, but even I have noticed MANY reasons why you or I would consider these flights "anonymous"... I've even given a couple of good ones myself. Other than that, I don't understand the issue here...

But like I said initially, I have always considered this a non-issue. I guess it is going to take something hefty to sway me.

reply to post by GodshipForAll

Here is a list of ten possible explanations for this program.


Complied list of the 10 most likely theories concerning chemtrails:

1. To mitigate global warming and the rapid collapse of Earth's ecosystems by patching the ozone holes, to increase the planetary albedo, and to shield terrestrial life from the infrared, ultraviolet and cosmic rays from space.

2. For global weather modification to counter the effects of global warming, utilizing synthetic cloud making to control precipitation.

3. For Defense applications: concealment from aerial and satellite observation, to facilitate a new military communications system, to defend against incoming ICBMs (when combined with ELF and EMP waves), to facilitate an advanced military 3D imaging system.

4. As a delivery system for mass immunizations, or genetic modification without the knowledge of the population.

5. In conjunction with HAARP array to sterilize areas contaminated with biotoxins and toxic molds.

6. As a vehicle for mind control transmissions.

7. To shield the U.S. from ELF/Scalar weather control transmissions from Russia and China.

8. To facilitate electromagnetic mind control technologies to subjugate and control human populations physically, mentally and spiritually.

9. As a delivery system to facilitate global population reduction to sustainable levels in accordance with New World Order directives.

10. A combination of the uses listed above, as this technologies applications are quite versatile.

Each of these possibilities are backed up with solid evidence, as is detailed within the archives of the Chemtrail Hall of Shame, or in the www.bariumblues.com site. This should shed some light on the answers to the question: "why?"

The second question is: "who?" Who on Earth possesses sufficient genius, power, technology, and wealth necessary to coordinate this monumental global effort? There is only one group that meets the criteria: The Illuminati controlled New World Order.
source:www.lightwatcher.com...

reply to post by marsha law


Thanks for the link no doubt very interesting to say the least on its possibilities....
I can see why they would want to keep some of them secret.

The government is allowed to spray us - and they do. Here is the law for those of you who are too lazy to bother doing any research on the subject.

US Code title 50 chapter 32 subsection 10520a paragraph b

*I know, it doesn't exist... nothing is real blablablah.....

reply to post by Canadianduder


Yes, the government can test agents on you. That doesn't address the point, however...

ARRGGH! I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. Have fun guys.

reply to post by Canadianduder


I'm gonna have nightmares of 50 Alex Jones' screaming at me.
Yikes!

reply to post by Canadianduder


YTMND is not really a good law reference. If you look at the law, you'll see that it actually RESTRICTS what tests may be carried out, and explicitly says they cannot be carried out without informed consent. of the test subjects. See:

www.law.cornell.edu...

(c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

Originally posted by corvin77
With all due respect, if topics are interlinked, surely they should be discussed hand in hand.

With all due respect, corvin, had the title been "Study finds only 'mystery planes' produce persistant 'contrails' and by the way did you know about fluoride and mystery troop movements" then nothing would have been said.

But it wasn't. So lets see, are the topics interlinked?

"Study finds only 'mystery planes' produce persistant 'contrails'"

and

"fluoride in water"

and

"secret troop movements"

One is a "report" to do with aircraft supposedly spraying secret chemical compounds into the air.
One is an upfront practice carried out across the world in water purification plants.
One is a rumour about troops

Given that the post topic is the first one, and not the other two, then you would reasonably expect discussions to be about the first one, and that the other two would be classed as "off topic".

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that only certain members were being singled out by your order to stay on topic.

OK, I'll correct you. If certain members post off topic, then who's fault is that when they are asked to stick to the topic of the thread? Mine? No.

As moderator, I would have expected a more unbaised remark such as;

"And not anything to do with Fluroide, troop agreements or trying to prove non-existence of chemtrails etc."

The heading was "contrails" after all, was it not?

Unbiased?

OK. Fine. Heres a question for you.

As a moderator, should I go back through the thread and ding off every off topic post in it - including yours?

Or...

As a moderator, should I politely ask for people to stay on the topic of the thread and expect them to abide by the Terms and Conditions they signed up to when they joined ATS?

1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

As for people trying to prove the non-existance of chemtrails, that goes hand in hand with the topic, because if the information presented in the "study" is false or fundamentally flawed, then it merits discussion. Not only that but the OP expressley writes that contrail science attempts to deny the existence of chemtrails - if thats the case then discussions about the merits of one or the other are germane to the discussion.

I am amazed at how a "blind eye" is conveniently thrown at members who belittle & insult others & then force their own point of view as unquestionable fact down the OP's and supporting members throats.

Hmm. I think you have some one-sided blinkers on there, and maybe need to step back a little and read contributions from both "sides" in the argument, as both claim that their side is "undeniable".

Now then, as stated previously, the topic of this thread is

"Study finds only 'mystery planes' produce persistant 'contrails'"

So lets discuss the actual topic, shall we?

reply to post by neformore


I'm new here, but I must ask:

Shouldn't we at least reference the other nefarious things that the government does whenever we are discussing chemtrails. Even in a court of law, Precedent goes along way.

And so I ask:

Are we not allowed to establish or even reference Precedent?

If We aren't allowed to cite reference to Precedents, then I will no longer be participating in the discussion... I do not wish to discuss aforesaid precedents, I wish to merely cite them without constant interruption and reminders not to cite precedents.

Good day.

reply to post by Canadianduder


I believe it may be a matter of logic:
Birds perch
Perch are a species of fish
Therefore birds are fish

Originally posted by Canadianduder
reply to post by neformore

 

Are we not allowed to establish or even reference Precedent?

Hi new member Welcome to ATS.

Lets me give you an example

"And don't forget, the government puts fluoride in the water and that may be connected with this"

is a precedent, germane to the topic.

A whole post on fluoride in the water in a thread entitled Study finds only 'mystery planes' produce persistant 'contrails' isn't referencing precedent, its being off topic.

Hope that's cleared it up for you

BTW, theres a thread called The ATS issues thread where you can ask stuff like this, and its probably the best place for it

i watch planes go back and forth turn around and go around and around
ive seen 3 do this in tag team at the same time
planes with no place to go? making a spiderweb in the sky
then it rains stringy cob webs then you get that flu-achy feeling like
your coming down with something


ummmmm the CONSPIRACY EXIST

Originally posted by GRANDWORLDDRAMA
i watch planes go back and forth turn around and go around and around
ive seen 3 do this in tag team at the same time
planes with no place to go? making a spiderweb in the sky
then it rains stringy cob webs then you get that flu-achy feeling like
your coming down with something


ummmmm the CONSPIRACY EXIST

Did you take photos?
A video?
Collect a sample?

reply to post by GRANDWORLDDRAMA


Holding pattern:


www.wikihow.com...