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.
'Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.
Originally posted by Sri Oracle
AIR PLANES OFTEN drop MASSIVE quantities of SILVER IODIDE, TRIMETHYL ALUMINUM, BARIUM, and PROPANE, into the SKY over large areas of North America,
Originally posted by Stewie
*snip*
Chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere. I think they call that "chemtrailing", don't they?
Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I am not claiming that it is related to the lines in the sky. I don't know about that, I'm not an expert.
Originally posted by FIFIGI
Here the weather man explains certain clouds being sprayed by military.
Chaff, originally called Window by the British, and Düppel by the Second World War era German Luftwaffe, is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft or other targets spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminium, metallised glass fibre or plastic, which either appears as a cluster of secondary targets on radar screens or swamps the screen with multiple returns.
Modern armed forces use chaff (in naval applications, for instance, using short-range SRBOC rockets) to distract radar-guided missiles from their targets. Most military aircraft and warships have chaff dispensing systems for self-defense. An intercontinental ballistic missile may release in its midcourse phase several independent warheads, a large number of decoys, and chaff.
Chaff can also be used to signal distress by an aircraft when communications are not functional. This has the same effect as an SOS, and can be picked up on radar. It is done by dropping chaff every 2 minutes.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Chemtrails of the "lines in the sky variety" are not "born out of ignorance paranoia and lies"
They are born out of PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE from Countless sources.
What each individual thinks about those photos, and their assessment of them, is debatable and questionable.
But simply saying it's all bunk IS BUNK itself!
Because they are derived from tons of PHOTO EVIDENCE.