New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Many debunkers and chemtrail skeptics are just as hard headed as they come. . . .

Thread:  I'm a Chemtrail Debunker/Detractor  . . . I would agree CHEMTRAILs exist if . . . Poll

POLL:  I'm a Chemtrail Debunker/Detractor  . . . I would agree CHEMTRAILs exist if
1) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . .no way, never possible   40.4% (91)
7) More than one of the above. . . .   24.9% (56)
4) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . . In situ testing by MIT confirmed it   10.2% (23)
5) CHEMTRAILs exist if. . . . Several Aircrews admitted under Oath   10.2% (23)
8) None of these answers . . . I will Post my answer below   9.3% (21)
6) CHEMTRAILs exist if. . . . Raytheon Corp. Published Prospectus including profits from Chemtrail OPS   2.2% (5)
2) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . The President said they existed   1.3% (3)
3) CHEMTRAILs exist if . .  Fox, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC say they exist   1.3% (3)
Blank (View Results) (104)

Non-Blank Votes: 225

To be fair . . .Chemtrail Advocates are prone to believe in conspiracies in general . . ..


Notice the percentage of Skeptics in one poll and the non-believers in the other poll. . . interesting don't you think?????

Thread: Are you a Conspiracy NUT? . . .Poll . . . You may be a real Conspiracy Nut If YOU. . . .

POLL: Are you a Conspiracy nut Poll? . . Choose one response. . .
2.  I believe at least (12) are real. . . Enthusiast   27.8% (72)
1.  I believe at least (6) are real or less . . . Skeptic   23.6% (61)
3.  I believe at least (18) are real. . . GLP Mainstream   22.8% (59)
6.  I believe in all 30 and more. . . Tin Foil Hat Award    14.7% (38)
4.  I believe at least (24) are real. . . Next GLP MOD   8.1% (21)
5.  I believe at least (30) are real. . . Consider Meds   3.1% (8)
Blank (View Results) (39)

Non-Blank Votes: 259

Many admit they believe in many other conspiracies. . . . while debunkers usually are Skeptics. . . .

Thread: New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . .   36.4% (890)
No, I do not . . .   23.3% (571)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas   18.0% (441)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc.   10.6% (259)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines   6.1% (149)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc.   5.6% (136)
Blank (View Results) (436)

Non-Blank Votes: 2446

George B , you jump back and forth with the chemtrail issue.

Is there more to your interest in chemtrails that meets the eye?

If that is what you think . . . Why??? I try to tell the truth. . . .where ever it goes. . . I present evidence when I find it . . . I think there is substantial circumstantial evidence that an intentional aerosol injection program exists and nothing I have found has
changed my mind . . .

Last Edited by George B on 06/13/2012 10:35 AM

[link to dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk (secure)]



Last Edited by George B on 06/13/2012 12:26 PM

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH,
VOL. 101, NO. D3, PP. 6853-6869, 1996doi:10.1029/95JD03405

In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels


The impact of sulfur oxides on particle formation and contrails is investigated in the exhaust plumes of a twin-engine jet aircraft. Different fuels were used with sulfur mass fractions of 170 and 5500 ppm in the fuel, one lower than average, the other above the specification limit of standard Jet-Al fuel. During various phases of the same flight, the two engines burnt either high- or low-sulfur fuel or different fuels in the two engines. Besides visual, photographic, and video observations from close distance, in situ measurements were made within the plumes at plume ages of 20 to 30 s, at altitudes between 9 and 9.5 km, and temperatures between −49 and −55°C, when the visible contrail was about 2 km long. The data include particle number densities for particles larger than 7 nm, 18 nm, 120 nm, and 1 μm in diameter, together with wind, temperature and humidity measurements. The observations show visible and measurable differences between contrails caused by the different sulfur levels.
[link to www.agu.org]

This post makes since to me, George. The pictures are what the sky looked like here for the last 2 days.

Good . . . now the question is always . . . Why???

Last Edited by George B on 06/13/2012 09:33 PM

Good night all . . . :Chemtrail - Pict:

To upset the chemnuts.

Why..... Exactly, that's what we all need to know.

From other Thread . . .
Thread: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand. (Page 29)








Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Apr 17;46(8):4275-82. Epub 2012 Mar 28.

Source
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. sbarrett@mit.edu


". In contrast, the maximum sulfur content of aviation fuel has remained unchanged at 3000 ppm (although sulfur levels average 600 ppm in practice)."

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Last Edited by George B on 06/14/2012 05:41 PM

Do you know why it exists? Why are they spraying? And what?

I think there are several experimental programs which don't amount to much and are likely localized for the most part; however, the global program is stratospheric or near stratospheric injection of sulfur compounds via spiked jet fuel for the most part. . . to change the rate of global warming . . . either to slow it down or speed it up . . .

i guess it is better to be safe then sorry.

In what way . . . ??

so you don't think that 'they' are flying chemtrial planes?
you think the commercial planes have something added to their feul? I don't believe that. I think the 2 are seperate.

There may well be aircraft dedicated to aerosol injection . . . but I don't think they are common . . . and they would be flown when normal air traffic would mask their activities . . . or at times early morning, night and at dusk when air movements and visibility are optimal for their mission . . .

Well, I disagree with you about that. In fact I'm sure you are wrong about it. the chemtrail sprayings are whole different ball game.

That is fine . . . no one knows for sure . . . it is all guesses and theory right now . . . yours is as good as mine are. . . what are your theories ...??

Last Edited by George B on 06/14/2012 10:49 PM

See, this is why I think that you are not a true chemtrail believer, to you it is a theory. I see them so I don't believe that it is a theory. Chemtrails are very real. Differnt then additives in jet fuel.
The chemtrial planes are different, in fact some may not even be planes.

Not everyone can see what you see. . . you don't know what I see or don't see . . . I can only discuss what I know . . . you are welcome to share what you believe . . . you should grant me the same right . . .

you have had the same right, you said what you see.. Unless you are not telling the truth. Only you know your truth and I shared with you my truth.

I have to agree here, with #7913. The planes I've seen laying the trails out in their own specific pattern are not commercial planes unless you are talking about tanker planes as being commercial.

Now if you are saying that the commercial planes (airlines?) are also spraying, that could be and as you say at a much higher altitude. I've never seen chemtrails from a commercial flight, but they are in decent by the time they fly over my home. However I'm sure they could be spraying at a much high elevation. I believe they use several different planes from my personal observation.

Just contributing here, to help.

need more proof anyone?

www.facebook.com/dcpmusic - link up conscious people. :)

The same way the sky looks here a great deal of the time. Planes and all. So far today, the sky is bright deep blue and beautiful in the Mid Atlantic. Hope it lasts for a while. Easy to breath today. Going out to enjoy it, while it lasts.

George, just my 2 cents, I think the chemtrail planes/drones/ufo's- whatever they may be, are totally different from the other planes we see. I doubt that passenger planes are being risked/used for chemtrail spraying, plus these planes do not have the lingering trails from my observations.
Don't you think that it would be risky/messy to add chemicals to Jet Fuel?

Thread: RED-HANDED! Texas Weather Mod. Right Before Freak Hail Storms! [VIDEO + Info]

Sulfur compounds up to 5,500 ppm have been spiked in fuel without problems for aircraft performance . . . the normal sulfur concentration is around 500 or ten times less . . . so one can add ten times the normal level and no one would know the difference . . . this level of added sulfur would dramatically alter the climate through global dimming . . .

I am not saying other aerial injection programs are not in play with dedicated craft and other substances . . . however, commercial aircraft could certainly be used through sulfur spiked fuel. . .