New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

You people keep making such statements...but manage to completely FAIL at supporting them.

Just one stupid assumption after another after another...

It will never end with you people...and it's hilarious.

Thanks for being the ignorant kook you are...have always been...and will always be.

You are my entertainment...dance fool, dance!

Glad to amuse you. You are on here 24/7 filling up the threads with your futile disinfo. Actually, the topic is way over your head. Maybe you'll start learning a little something soon.

You also are entertainment. Hope you haven't ground your teeth down too far and maybe when you grow up, you can become a pretend pilot.

Thanks for all your votes. . . .

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . .   36.3% (881)
No, I do not . . .   23.3% (565)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas   18.1% (439)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc.   10.6% (257)
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) (434)

Non-Blank Votes: 2427

I have learned all I need to learn about "chemtrails".

1) te trails we all see in the sky are contrails, every one of them.

2) chemtards have no evidence to support their beliefs.

3) chemtards are ignorant about aviation and atmospheric science and then jump to stupid conclusions.

4) conspiracy nuts are hilarious losers.

Done!

Good morning Noble. . . shouldn't you be out with your family enjoying contrail watching. . .

Shouldn't you be out spreading your paranoid ignorance as truth?

for George B!

I'll second that bump for George B.

Thanks . . . it is appreciated . . .

Thanks again . . . it is really appreciated .. .

CASE STUDY 2
WEATHER MODIFICATION: THE EVOLUTION OF AN R&D
PROGRAM INTO A MILITARY OPERATION


As we will see, it was instrumental in prompting the largest weather modification
R&D program in the Dept. of Defense. Besides that, it was the most
excellent ammunition for those who were only too delighted to be able to
point to a Soviet "weather threat." Dr. Edward Teller - a frequent
participant of many of these campaigns - could serve up the following
vision to a US Senate Preparedness Subcommittee: "Please imagine, a
world ... where the (Soviets) can change the rainfall over Russia ... and
influence the rainfall in our country in an adverse manner." (21)

21. From 1963 to 1965 Dr. Teller subsequently served on The Committee
on Atmospheric Sciences, and on the Panel on Weather and Climate
Modification of the US National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council .



Weather warfare scenarios were presented, and concepts of "meteorological
deterrence and parity" were invoked. Members of Congress themselves
also joined the chorus of exhortation. Senator L.B.Johnson (then Chairman
of a Senate Committee on Space) told the Congress "From space one
could control the earths weather, cause drought and floods, change tides
and raise the level of the seas, make temperate climates frigid." (23)

23. Quoted in L. Ponte, The Cooling, op. cit. p. 169. Ten years later the
same conceptions were repeated
" ... the advent of military man in space is inevitable ...
And in time he may actually be able, with a whole host of
scientific aids, to control the weather with all the tremendous
military and social consequences this implies."


[link to www.fas.org]


:Teller:

NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming

July 21, 2011

A recent increase in the abundance of particles high in the atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade, according to a new study led by NOAA and published today in the online edition of Science

“Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade,” Daniel said. “The increase in aerosols since 2000 implies a cooling effect of about 0.1 watts per square meter – enough to offset some of the 0.28 watts per square meter warming effect from the carbon dioxide increase during that same period.” Sources of aerosols reach the stratosphere from above and below, as shown in the graph. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), and dimethyl sulfide(DMS) are the dominant surface emissions which contribute to aerosol formation.
Download here. (Credit: NOAA)
The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).

(why not Sulfur comopounds or other aerosols injected into the atmosphere through an intentional aerosol injection program)



Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles. [link to www.noaanews.noaa.gov]

Last Edited by George B on 06/12/2012 06:32 PM

Glad to see you back here, George B. Always enjoy your posts. Thanks for the great input. I have a theory about the aerosols in the atmosphere. LOL

I trust my vision when the sky is full of unusual persistent trail activity. And yes, they are all over the sky.

Thanks . . . please share your theory . . .

My theory, George, is that they are chemtrails. Plain and simple. Dispersed by several airplanes flying together laying them out. They are not as high up in altitude as some would have you think. Usually about 7 planes. There is usually one with a regular contrail flying among the ones laying the persistent trails. We noticed one plane that would be halfway back in the contrails and looked as if it were dropping an object into the trail intermittently along the way. I've posted this before. Just curious if anyone else has seen this particular activity. Afterward of course the sky turns white and in most cases when we've seen this, the weather changes. There's more to say, but too lengthy to get into.

Seen this too many times to shrug it off as nothing. Besides, there are days when you can smell the chemicals. Not always, though.

Thanks . . . have you observed this in more than one location . . . ?

Yes, and was the same formation with the planes. Mid Atlantic near Washington, DC and Eastern Shore, Virginia. Never saw chemtrails in Virginia till this year and they have been very heavy. Kinda hard to miss. Also when we went on Cruise to Bahamas they were over the Chesapeake Bay.

Thanks . . .

Welcome. Glad to share. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and believe the trails are to meant to help, whatever, that's all.

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)]

:Contrail Cirrus:

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]

:Aircraft Induced:

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