CBS Atlanta - Chemtrail Pictures Come in By The Thousands!

reply to post by Human_Alien


The more to question this the better.

I live by two airports and I will see a plane fly with a standard looking contrail, not long after, another of the same make will leave a long lasting contrail. Same altitude, same hour, same temps. Go figure.

Contrails are causing sky uglification, at the very least. There is more than condensation coming out the exhaust of these engines, And I would suggest that the exhaust is worse than what comes out of our coal plant stacks.
Coal plant = water vapor, carbon dioxide
Plane exhaust = water vapor, sulfur, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, ozone, soot,+

I recall years ago there was an all out war on light contamination effecting the night skies.

I am seeing these nasty looking, air polluting, contrails all the time.
If I am not mistaken there are only few kinds of clouds on the chart.
Its time to add a new one.
-Chemocumulus
-3 - 10,000 ft
-Low or High layered cloud with long, Horizon to Horizon, Single or Cross Hatched-like structure
-resembling an extended contrail.

I went to this site to check cloud clasifications and there is a contrail that looks like my first one below in thier photo of Cirrostratus.
cloud classes site
or


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/36472fa5fb31.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28df8f30e905.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


These are great pictures, i am sure these planes are just making these turns at 30,000+ feet since they need to wait for a runway .

Yeah man , these wonderful contrails that are so nice to observe...whatEVER they are they need to go !

I have been seeing massive amounts of contrails at my work in Roseville, Ca. I am a rational open minded person so i dont pretend to know whether they are "chemtrails" or not. There are no airports around the area so the air traffic is definetely strange especially how the trails are going in all directions. And within a hour or two a clear sky turns hazy dirty cloud cover. Like i said i dont claim they are "chemtrails" but i cant just disregard the theory because i just dont know.

reply to post by backinblack


Here's the pdf I was talking about, it's worth a read if the subject interests you.

www.bragwebdesign.com...

And the picture I was describing:

This thread and all other threads on "Chemtrails" are giving Conspiracy Theory Web Sites, a bad name! They are baseless and contain NO FACTS.

Any pilot will tell you they are nothing more then Contrails. A contrail is aircraft exhaust. End of story. We are NOT being sprayed by some sinister boogie man! For God sakes.

This site's title is "Deny Ignorance"; yet you blindly follow something that has been debunked time and time again.

I challenge anyone to take a ride in ANY aircraft. While you are up in the sky watch how that "CHEMTRAIL" shoots out of the rear of ANY aircraft.

My father is a flight instructor at Lancaster Regional Air Port. Tiny, but my point is if you are in the area pay the $75 consultation and take a free ride for 20 minutes...

BUSTED

reply to post by Human_Alien

I love the senator "It's just a theory and there's no evidence therefore, it's not happening"

YEAH RIGHT. One of the farmer groups had a member who worked on an Air Force base. He grabbed a sample and had the stuff analyzed by a lab. NASTY stuff. But you will never get TPTB to acknowledge it. The Mass media of course is nothing but a propaganda tool.


U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

(the takeover of the media)
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...

Who controls the media www.nowfoundation.org...

Interlocking Directorates
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests:
www.fair.org...

Someone needs to record the flight paths of the chemtrail planes onto a map, and then, overlay it with all the regular passenger jets, and also other non-classified military jets. When there is evidence for an excessive amount of planes in the atmosphere, and there were no recorded military exercises, then we can confront the government to ask what all those planes were meant for or where they were going.

Chemtrail plane grounded:

www.indianexpress.com...

www.whatdoesitmean.com...

Insiders:

www.holmestead.ca...

zedek.us...

An interesting round-up here as well:

www.nwofighters.org...

I stumbled across this company's website recently.

www.weathermodification.com...

Its interesting to discover who some of the clients are.

reply to post by Beyond Creation


Nice find. Very interesting that any municipality can get a simple permit(so it seems) and have their weather modified.

Makes it sound so clean and simple!

In the light of a new day, i may have to reconsider all I know so far about chemtrails.

UM.. Yeah. It's common knowledge this is happening. There are even laws to protect the spraying.

In FL we have rainbow blobs in the sky and chemical residue left behind on he ground (white strands on the plants) as well as small white pellets sometimes....

The question isn't is this happening? But, what can we do about it?

I have read a couple years ago that copper pipes with crystals will dismantle these trails and have seen video eidence. I will try to find some links, very easy to build "machine".

Here ya go, do some research, I think these really work





AND for those of you with a low attention span, want a short how to??

It's sad people deny deny deny without doing research int US history. I know these are wikpedia, but it is the easiest place to go for one stop summation. Do more research on your own, I'll give you the basics.

Project_SHAD

Project SHAD stands for Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense, a series of Cold War-era tests by the United States Department of Defense of biological weapons and chemical weapons. Exposures of uninformed and unwilling humans during the testing to the test substances, particularly the exposure to United States military personnel then in service, has added controversy to recent revelations of the project.

Project 112

Project 112 was a biological and chemical weapons experimentation project conducted by the US Army from 1962 to 1973. The project started under John F. Kennedy's administration, and was authorized by his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, as part of a total review of the US military. The name of the project refers to its number in the review process. Every branch of the armed services contributed funding and staff to the project.

Experiments were planned and conducted by the Deseret Test Center and Deseret Chemical Depot at Fort Douglas, Utah. They were designed to test the effects of biological weapons and chemical weapons on service personnel. They involved unknowing test subjects, and took place on land and at sea via tests conducted upon unwitting US Naval vessels. The existence of the project (along with the related Project SHAD) was categorically denied by the military until May 2000, when a CBS Evening News investigative report produced dramatic revelations about the tests. This report caused the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to launch an extensive investigation of the experiments, and reveal to the affected personnel their exposure to toxins.

LAW THAT ALLOWS:

PUBLIC LAW 105—85—NOV. 18, 1997: USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

------
DEFINITION OF BIOLOGICAL AGENT:

(e) BIOLOGICAL AGENT DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘‘biological agent’’ means any micro-organism (including bacteria,
viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance,
and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized
component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance,
whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable
of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a
human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or
materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Hello k k...

...the "trails" almost instantly turn off as if a switch were flipped.
What causes that?

You actually had the answer, in your posted question, which included this correct statement:

... even if it entered a less/more dense or warmer/colder airspace the "trails" uniformly and abruptly ceased.

As you also said, in cases of altitude changes, same effect can be observed. BUT, at a constant altitude...the air is not homogeneous. (BTW....this is Aviation Advanced info....at cruise altitudes above 18,000 (in the USA, sometimes lower in other jurisdictions) all altimeters are set to the same "correction factor" setting. It is called, therefore, a "Flight Level". What this means is that you actually fly a constant pressure, that corresponds with an indicated "altitude". The actual exact height above Sea Level can differ by hundreds, even a thousand feet, in some extreme pressure variances. This concept is used so that everyone at altitude is on the "same page"...a level playing field, so to speak. Pressure differences geographically occur, as the atmosphere is ever-changing. You TV weather man puts "Highs" and "Lows" on the weather map, right? That is what he's talking about..."non-standard" pressure variations. This is measured at the surface, and extrapolated vertically directly above each location. For slower-flying airplanes, it is customary to obtain updated "altimeter setting" corrections, from ground stations, as you fly along....so that the altitude indicated by your altimeter matches everyone else's in your vicinity. By just putting everyone on the same, it makes it unnecessary to keep updating for local variances.

BUT....nevertheless, the variances still occur. So, even if it looks like the airplane is not in the act of actually changing altitude intentionally, it CAN be relative to real height above ground....even as the altimeter stays steady indicating at, say FL330. (33,000 feet).

In the USA we use "inches" of Mg....29.92 is "standard", and is an adopt international agreement for average Sea Level pressure. Equates to world-wide 1013.2 mm of Mg....in aviation, called "hectopascals".

For a ground station (airport or weather reporting station) an "altimeter setting" is provided....this is referred to to set the alitimeter's "Kollsman" window adjustment....each .1 inch is = to 100 feet...because every one inch = to 1,000 feet. When the local area's pressure is very low (down to about 29.50 and lower) then the normally "lowest" Flight Level of 180 is unusable....airplanes that set to "standard" and attempt to hold an indicated "18,000" feet would be dangerously close to others who (being on VFR, not IFR clearances) will be at a VFR altitude of, say....17,500...AND will have corrected their altimeters, via the way described above. .42 inches, = 420 feet....so, you have, now, LESS than 100 feet vertical separation from these two hypothetical airplanes. 500 feet is considered absolute minimum if one or both are in visual contact.

(Eg, airplane "A", thinking he's at FL180 is actually at a "true" height of 18,000 minus 420 = 17,580 feet).

Hope that isn't too overly complicated....easier to learn by experience of doing, than to write up and explain...

SO, again back to the point....thinking in three dimensions, is what many "chem"-trail believers fail to do, and thus fail comprehension. The atmosphere is always non-standard in some way...pressure, Relative Humidity, etc...both horizontally, vertically AND also diagonally, etc....in all dimensions. Always changing too.

Here, these time-lapse videos illustrate....as the air moves (wind) topographical features can cause air to rise and fall, as it follows the contours. Carried with the air, the water vapor will either remain in vapor state, or when forced to by the air's changing height, may condense out into visible form....and, conversely, after condensing, may move to where it's "drier" than before, and evaporate, like this:





Those called "standing lenticulars" are the most dramatic examples. Also, search around for plenty more in time lapse....can find stratus "flowing" off tops of hills and mountains....stuff like that.

ALL of the time lapse videos are instructive, in this topic....because those who view contrails and cry " 'Chem'-trails! " are seeing things that happen so slowly, by Human perspective, that they misinterpret a very natural phenomenon.

reply to post by RRstl1000

long time ago I and one of my coworkers talked about seeing this very thing..it was just beginning in full
force I think.
if it looks like a bird and flys like a bird..is it be a bird?
perhaps that is not such an easy question today as many years ago.
sure looks like something is up there that is different since it lingers and forms "clouds".

reply to post by SystemResistor


Jesus!! You people seem to believe anything, without even the simplest checking of facts!!!

This is FALSE!:

Chemtrail plane grounded:

www.indianexpress.com...

www.whatdoesitmean.com...

Look at that picture!!!! It is NOT, NOT, NOT a United States military airplane!! It is RUSSIAN! An Antonov AN-124!:

en.wikipedia.org...

Gosh. the "chem"-trail hoax rolls along, willingly aided by the gullible who swallow every ridiculous claim....it is a HOAX, and there are people sitting back and laughing at the "chemmies" as they scramble and huff and puff in "indignation" over nothing!!!

Oh, and LOOK AT THE SECOND LINK!!! First, in the header of the site...."noah's ark"!!!

But, seriously.....there is a "name" associated with many articles there...a KNOWN hoaxer and all-around pest...."Sorcha Faal"....plenty of ATS threads about him/her/it......

So, keep spreading the DIS-information. Those who profit off the hoaxing, and enjoy pulling pranks and laughing as they watch people jump through the hoops they built are the ones who win......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More friggin' garbage, here:

An interesting round-up here as well:

www.nwofighters.org...

Starts of with the LONG AGO DEBUNKED "KC-10 chemtrail" video!!!! I am so tired of that crap being brought up, time and again...was beaten to death already, here on ATS. THAT was filmed by a USAF flight engineer....a crewmember on KC-10s...as a JOKE!! That is condensation. Contrails, and some nifty flights through existing cirrus clouds, that cause that effect. That Is all! No "spraying"...sorry to say this, but only the truly ignorant will see that and not realize what it actually is. This "chem"-trail hoax relies on the rampant ignorance that abounds in the world!! They prey on you....because they know they can sell their snake oil to those who are not educated enough to comprehend they are being fooled.

GET educated!!

reply to post by miconATSrender


Now we are getting somewhere. I've been posting ad infinitum on the nastiness of jet exhaust but my mistake was it was always in a Chemtrail thread like this one. At last we have a couple of posts focusing on the exhausts themselves, which are veritable chemtrails. Before someone here tells us all exactly what comes out of a jet exhaust, I can tell you that it is not possible to know exactly, since some fuel ingredients are SECRET full stop! This is not sensationalism it is a fact. Jet fuel added contents,

Aluminium borohydride, jet fuel additive,
Barium salts, Stadis 450 ex-Dupont, see this pdf, chemtrails.cc... It deals with cloud seeding or accidental cloud seeding, and persistant contrails. This is just some additives to jet fuel, you need do do your own homework to explore everything, but this is just the "stuff" going into an engine, and it is fair to say that in combustion more chemical processes take place affecting what comes out of the exhaust. The next link IS a new Chemtrail page, the info on it, includes US navy and army programmes. I don't know if these projects can be confirmed as yet, so you have to make up your own mind.

www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com...

Other info on fuel, www.ehow.com...

reply to post by smurfy


Sorry, Smurf....but you're wrongly exaggerating. And, you agreed with micronATS abou t his???:

Coal plant = water vapor, carbon dioxide
Plane exhaust = water vapor, sulfur, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, ozone, soot,+

Well....let's check some facts, eh?? Again, that member's claim RE: coal plants? FALSE!!!:

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.

10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.

500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.

10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

!!!!!! URANIUM!!!! Show me an airplane fuel exhaust trail that has URANIUM in it!!!
www.ucsusa.org...

AND:

www.ucsusa.org...
(Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single bigest air polluter in the U.S.)

And:

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Sorry, the remainder of your post, wow! I will have to come back on that....wanted to make sure that the ABOVE got out, first!

Do you SEE the amonts of DIS-information on this subject?? It is everywhere you look....from the "Chicken Little" fearmongers and doomsayers, to the criminals who actually perpetuate this nonsense for personal gain, and amusement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've already written a very deep examination of the Jet-A1 fuel additives, and the amounts in weight and percentages...that amount to SQUAT, and bupkis!! In other thread, a few weeks (or a month) back. Will hunt for it, rather than repeating all the work......As I recall, doing the math. Worked out to just that one additive, the anti-static product called "Stadis 450" ---- for a typical two-engined airliner flying for six hours (typical cross the United States, coast-to-coast) the total amount, by weight of just that one additive? Something like 64 ounces. Either per hour, or total, can't recall...either way, it's VERY small amount. Yes?? AND, that assumes that none of it gets burned up and destroyed in the heat of combustion....roughly ~3,000 degrees Fahrenheit!!

Here also, in response to the claims made by microATS....Jet-A1 additives:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll do it for yuo

Stadis 450 (here's the MSDS) - it is at most 40% made of compunds that might contain barium (the "trade secrety" ingredients - nothing else contains barium.

From this British Def Standard, section A.4, it can be added to fuel at 3 mg/litre, or "redoped" up to 5 mg/litre (which I understrand to be reapplication when the requierd effect has worn off). the civilian standard is ASTM D1655, which I can't find online free anywhere.

So each litre of fuel contains, at most, 2 mg of barium containing substances (40% of 5mg/litre). Thats 2 parts per million of barium containing substances - not barioum alone - the amount of barium is something less than 2 ppm, but we don't know exactly how much less, so I'm keeping that as the upper limit.

I believe a 747 can burn 25,000lbs of fuel at cruise - the actual amount will vary with altitude, exact a/c model, payload, etc, Jet A1 has a specific gravity of 0.775-0.840, and 25,000lb is approximately11,340 kilos, which means 13,500-14,600 litres per hour. At 2 mg/litre that's 27,000~29,000 mg of barium containing materials - roughly speaking - so 27-29 grams, spread along maybe 5-600 miles of flight path.

that's what we in these parts call sweet f-a!

And you know something - if it was dangerous, the max concentration would be around airports, where jet engines at takeoff thrust are burning many more times the amount of gas they do at cruise - and you don't actually see it......

Figures the chemtards would ignore that - it's too easy to test!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ok ok ok, you made your point.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
80 billion litres a year in the US alone?