Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,517 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 358,184
Pageviews Today: 478,337Threads Today: 82Posts Today: 1,840
03:48 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.

 
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 1211465
United States
06/15/2012 03:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
...


Sorry, you have no evidence that the trails in the sky are anything more than contrails.

All that other stuff is irrelevant. I'm not even arguing it!

The ONLY thing I'm saying is that the trails are NOT related to any of this...and the chemtards have failed to prove they are. Making assumptions and jumping to conclusions doesn't mean anything...
 Quoting: Noble


The evidence of the crime is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is, is that you are under the employ of those responsible for the crime. So you continue to move the goal post and ask for evidence that is impossible for anyone other than the perpetrators and their accomplices to gather. This impossible standard is meant to be a firewall to any investigation. This technique is meant to confound concerned citizens, and send them searching for some pie in the sky holy grail evidence which isn't available.

People need to know that any entity that is willing to spend billions on these programs are going to spend a few million to hire some counter-intel shills such as yourself. You are, by the way, the most inept and childlike of the ones I have encountered.

After all, when we talk about the global warming/climate change agenda, we are talking about trillions in carbon tax funds, control of the economy, and an excuse to remake society in the image they choose.

This is why we must continue to spread the word that man made global warming/climate change might in fact be real, but it is not being caused by carbon dioxide. It it is being man made by stratospheric sulfate aerosol spraying programs. Once you are aware of this, and you see these news reports about climate change, the whole scam becomes obvious.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14542172



I have PLENTY of reasonable doubt about the claims of the chemtwats...

How can you claim I'm under the employ of anyone? You don't know me! Any claims you make about who I'm employed by and why I'm on this site is nothing more than paranoid conjecture. No one has to pay anyone to point out the truths as they are known within ANY book on atmospheric science and basic principles of aviation. Sorry!

Asking for evidence from the ones making the claims is the NORMAL thing to do...and you all have failed.

What is "obvious" is that you are an ignorant and paranoid lunatic.
 Quoting: Noble


Not a lunatic. I just have you pegged.

And it's not conjecture that you are running counter intelligence. It's a fact.

There is no way that you could be ignorant enough to see video footage where the criminals describe the stratospheric sulfate aerosol spraying program. And then see video footage of the exact procedure they describe being undertaken. And then still deny it is happening.

A normal and honest observer would come to the logical conclusion that in fact the program is already being implemented, and join the fight to stop it.

You are not an independent observer though. You have an agenda which is to obfuscate, insult, and throw honest citizens of the trail with red herrings in order to buy time for the the continued commission of the crime.

We are on to you. We know your method. We will continue to expose you and your shill tactics.yoda
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14542172


crazy
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/15/2012 06:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Guess you failed to read the last paragraph on page 5, regarding commercial maximums. . . . 1rof1
 Quoting: George B


Read paragraph 2 on that page again...

S L O W L Y

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


[link to www.exxonmobil.com]

Tables one, two, 19 and 20. . . read it and weep . . . verycool

Maximum Sulfur content 3,000 ppm. . .
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/16/2012 07:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Guess you failed to read the last paragraph on page 5, regarding commercial maximums. . . . 1rof1
 Quoting: George B


Read paragraph 2 on that page again...

S L O W L Y

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


[link to www.exxonmobil.com]

Tables one, two, 19 and 20. . . read it and weep . . . verycool

Maximum Sulfur content 3,000 ppm. . .
 Quoting: George B


It still doesn't change the fact that paranoid idiots are pointing at contrails and calling them "chemtrails" when there is no evidence that they are anything but contrails.....which, by the way, are not "chemtrails".


I'm sure there is a logical, non nefarious, explanation for such research. Maybe you could CONTINUE trying to find it...instead of just jumping to conclusions.
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4005478
United States
06/16/2012 07:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
chemtrails only exist in minds of the mental, sure would be a fun job though
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14542172
United States
06/16/2012 10:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Guess you failed to read the last paragraph on page 5, regarding commercial maximums. . . . 1rof1
 Quoting: George B


Read paragraph 2 on that page again...

S L O W L Y

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


[link to www.exxonmobil.com]

Tables one, two, 19 and 20. . . read it and weep . . . verycool

Maximum Sulfur content 3,000 ppm. . .
 Quoting: George B


It still doesn't change the fact that paranoid idiots are pointing at contrails and calling them "chemtrails" when there is no evidence that they are anything but contrails.....which, by the way, are not "chemtrails".


I'm sure there is a logical, non nefarious, explanation for such research. Maybe you could CONTINUE trying to find it...instead of just jumping to conclusions.
 Quoting: Noble



Hilarious.

"I'm sure there is a logical, non nefarious, explanation for such research." (Jumps to conclusion)

"Maybe you could CONTINUE trying to find it...instead of just jumping to conclusions."(Proceeds to scold someone for jumping to conclusions in the very next sentence)

Find a new job Mr. counter intelligence operative.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1611462
United States
06/16/2012 10:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
The skies are white from 'geoengineering'. Geoengineering is a broad term for everything aerosolized applications are doing to the atmosphere.
Weather modification
Radar enhancement
Satellite imaging
Surveillance
.................to name a few
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14110447


That's a "claim"...

By default, the trails in the sky are contrails. It's up to YOU chemtards to provide evidence that the trails have anything to do with the things listed above...

You have all failed to do so..

Just sayin...

Just because you claim something to be...and then find nonsense through a google search for "chemtrails"...doesn't mean the trails are anything more than contrails.

I'm sorry, that's just a fact.

That is NOT to say the things you listed aren't happening...I just see no evidence that the things listed above result in long white trails that look EXACTLY like persistent contrails. And neither do you.
 Quoting: Noble



Sorta like google search for contard science or metabunk, huh?

I'm sure you must know by now that the Encyclopedia Britanica will only be available on the webz in another year or so. OH, my......................
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1452592
United States
06/16/2012 11:00 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Guess you failed to read the last paragraph on page 5, regarding commercial maximums. . . . 1rof1
 Quoting: George B


Read paragraph 2 on that page again...

S L O W L Y

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


[link to www.exxonmobil.com]

Tables one, two, 19 and 20. . . read it and weep . . . verycool

Maximum Sulfur content 3,000 ppm. . .
 Quoting: George B


And your lovely paper starts off with 'Joint Operations'...

The only jet fuel requirements in the US and UK are dictated by their respective DOD's...


The Aviation Fuel Quality Requirements for Jointly Operated Systems (AFQRJOS) for Jet A-1 are based on the most stringent requirements of the following two specifications:
(a) British Ministry of Defence Standard DEF STAN 91-91/Issue 5 of 8 February 2005 for Turbine Fuel, Aviation 'Kerosine Type', Jet A-1, NATO Code F-35, Joint Service
Designation AVTUR.
(b) ASTM Standard Specification D1655-04a of 1 Nov 2004 for Aviation Turbine Fuels ‘Jet A-1’
Jet fuel that meets the AFQRJOS is usually referred to as “Jet A-1 to Check List” or “Check List Jet A-1” and, by definition, generally, meets the requirements of both of the
above specifications.
While the Table and Notes are central to the Joint Check List, fuels produced to this standard must satisfy the requirements detailed in the text of both primary specifications.



cruise
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 11:17 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Guess you failed to read the last paragraph on page 5, regarding commercial maximums. . . . 1rof1
 Quoting: George B


Read paragraph 2 on that page again...

S L O W L Y

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


[link to www.exxonmobil.com]

Tables one, two, 19 and 20. . . read it and weep . . . verycool

Maximum Sulfur content 3,000 ppm. . .
 Quoting: George B


And your lovely paper starts off with 'Joint Operations'...

The only jet fuel requirements in the US and UK are dictated by their respective DOD's...


The Aviation Fuel Quality Requirements for Jointly Operated Systems (AFQRJOS) for Jet A-1 are based on the most stringent requirements of the following two specifications:
(a) British Ministry of Defence Standard
DEF STAN 91-91/Issue 5 of 8 February 2005 for Turbine Fuel, Aviation 'Kerosine Type', Jet A-1, NATO Code F-35, Joint Service
Designation AVTUR.
(b) ASTM Standard Specification D1655-04a of 1 Nov 2004 for Aviation Turbine Fuels ‘Jet A-1’
Jet fuel that meets the AFQRJOS is usually referred to as “Jet A-1 to Check List” or “Check List Jet A-1” and, by definition, generally, meets the requirements of both of the

above specifications.
While the Table and Notes are central to the Joint Check List, fuels produced to this standard must satisfy the requirements detailed in the
text of both primary specifications.


cruise
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


These standards are accepted by all or most national and international commercial operations. . . that is the point. . . .whether they are in military
standards or not is basically irrelevant. . . .except the military is a big segment
of fuel use and drives the industry . . .3,000 ppm is effectively the recognized standard maximum sulfur concentration in jet fuel. . . and is stated as such in all the research literature. . . .so pound your sand down some other rat hole. . . .pick

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 11:20 AM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1452592
United States
06/16/2012 11:49 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
These standards are accepted by all or most national and international commercial operations that is the point.
 Quoting: George B


The point is just what I stated the first time...

You keep harping on a DOD maximum, when no jet fuel supplier is coming close to that spec, and is actually supplying fuel with appx. 1/5 the 'allowed' sulphur...

So feel free to keep droning on...

popcorndeer2
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 12:01 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
These standards are accepted by all or most national and international commercial operations that is the point.
 Quoting: George B


The point is just what I stated the first time...

You keep harping on a DOD maximum, when no jet fuel supplier is coming close to that spec, and is actually supplying fuel with appx. 1/5 the 'allowed' sulphur...

So feel free to keep droning on...

popcorndeer2
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Thanks so much for making my point over and over again . . . since the delivered concentrations are approximately 500 ppm and all the political and environmental pressure is to reduce it lower . . . why in the world would research be accomplished with fuel spiked at 5,500 ppm . . . effectively ten times the concentrations now in use . . . applause2

Also, thanks for point out once again the standards never changed even though the average delivered concentrations have been much, much lower . . . Why in the World would you leave the maximum standards that high when you have not been near them for years . . . maybe there is a reason . . . inquiring minds want to know . . . agent

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 12:42 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18041991
United States
06/16/2012 12:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
hitler



My promise......nothing but blue skies overhead at our camps.
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1452592
United States
06/16/2012 01:17 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
These standards are accepted by all or most national and international commercial operations that is the point.
 Quoting: George B


The point is just what I stated the first time...

You keep harping on a DOD maximum, when no jet fuel supplier is coming close to that spec, and is actually supplying fuel with appx. 1/5 the 'allowed' sulphur...

So feel free to keep droning on...

popcorndeer2
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Thanks so much for making my point over and over again . . . since the delivered concentrations are approximately 500 ppm and all the political and environmental pressure is to reduce it lower . . . why in the world would research be accomplished with fuel spiked at 5,500 ppm . . . effectively ten times the concentrations now in use . . . applause2

Also, thanks for point out once again the standards never changed even though the average delivered concentrations have been much, much lower . . . Why in the World would you leave the maximum standards that high when you have not been near them for years . . . maybe there is a reason . . . inquiring minds want to know . . . agent
 Quoting: George B


And I have told you over and over...

Ask 'them'...

rolleyes
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 01:32 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
These standards are accepted by all or most national and international commercial operations that is the point.
 Quoting: George B


The point is just what I stated the first time...

You keep harping on a DOD maximum, when no jet fuel supplier is coming close to that spec, and is actually supplying fuel with appx. 1/5 the 'allowed' sulphur...

So feel free to keep droning on...

popcorndeer2
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Thanks so much for making my point over and over again . . . since the delivered concentrations are approximately 500 ppm and all the political and environmental pressure is to reduce it lower . . . why in the world would research be accomplished with fuel spiked at 5,500 ppm . . . effectively ten times the concentrations now in use . . . applause2

Also, thanks for point out once again the standards never changed even though the average delivered concentrations have been much, much lower . . . Why in the World would you leave the maximum standards that high when you have not been near them for years . . . maybe there is a reason . . . inquiring minds want to know . . . :agent

 Quoting: George B


And I have told you over and over...

Ask 'them'...

rolleyes
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


I don't have to. . . they stated it in their Abstract. . . ."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. . . . "


[link to www.agu.org]

With a limit of 3,000 ppm . . . Please. . . .this is an obvious stretch . . . there is no logical reason to use 5,000 ppm unless you are curious to see if there is a visible difference in levels that could be used to alter climatic conditions. . . 5,500 would be such a level. . . .coffee4

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 01:33 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1452592
United States
06/16/2012 04:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Here's what you asked that I have been responding to:

Also why do research where you test the visibility of combustion trails from aircraft where the sulfur content is 5,000 ppm. . . .???? Seems a waste of money and time to me. . . .don't you think. . . just inquiring minds at work here. . . .
 Quoting: George B


Now you say:

I don't have to. . . they stated it in their Abstract. . . .
 Quoting: George B


If you KNOW the answer (which you don't seem to), then WHY do you continue to ask WHY???


cruise

loser
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1452592
United States
06/16/2012 04:16 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
And you conveniently ignore this from your 'abstract':

At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content......The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail.

cruise
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 04:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Here's what you asked that I have been responding to:

Also why do research where you test the visibility of combustion trails from aircraft where the sulfur content is 5,000 ppm. . . .???? Seems a waste of money and time to me. . . .don't you think. . . just inquiring minds at work here. . . .
 Quoting: George B


Now you say:

I don't have to. . . they stated it in their Abstract. . . .
 Quoting: George B


If you KNOW the answer (which you don't seem to), then WHY do you continue to ask WHY???


cruise

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Because their justification is . . . bsmeter
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 04:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
And you conveniently ignore this from your 'abstract':

At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content......The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail.

cruise
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Yes. . . . it supports my assumption . . . the whole effort was to test the visibility and persistence trends of geoengineering level concentrations of sulfur compounds in jet fuel . . . which by-the-way was done in 1995 . . coffee4 Sufficient time to integrate these findings into operational process . . .

Received 22 June 1995; accepted 27 October 1995; published 20 March 1996.

Citation: Schumann, U., J. Ström, R. Busen, R. Baumann, K. Gierens, M. Krautstrunk, F. P. Schröder, and J. Stingl (1996), In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 101(D3), 6853–6869, doi:10.1029/95JD03405.

[link to www.agu.org]

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 04:26 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
SnakeAirlines

User ID: 1452592
United States
06/16/2012 05:06 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Everything that proves you wrong, 'proves' you right (in your world)...

cruise
"Hold my cat while I bring in my tomato plant. That chemtrail looks like an earthquake chemtrail"

deanoZXT-07/20/2014 07:48 PM
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 05:09 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Everything that proves you wrong, 'proves' you right (in your world)...

cruise
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


What proves me wrong?spock

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 06:35 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14542172
United States
06/16/2012 08:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Chemtards don't understand some simple concepts...

For instance...

Chemtards have ZERO evidence that the trails in the sky are anything more than contrails.

Contrails can and DO spread out to fill the sky based on the how much moisture is already present, and how cold it is. This is a fact...not all contrails must dissipate within ANY time frame to be contrails. The atmospheric conditions determine how long a trail will last...or if it won't last at all.


Finding natural elements at ground level is evidence that natural elements are in nature...not that these elements (aluminum, barium, strontium...whatever) came from the trails.Natural elements are spread all around the earth through wind, water, erosion (wind and water) and many other natural processes including volcanoes, and the water cycle.


Those who disagree with the chemtards are NOT "disinfo-agents" or "shills". That's just ridiculous paranoid nonsense. One doesn't have to be working for "them" to point out that basic science and principles of aviation easily explain the trails in the sky. Just because I believe you to be wrong...and KNOW there is no evidence to support the chemtrail myth...Doesnt mean I'm a bad guy for pointing it out.



Just because someone finds a "patent" for a device or process for placing chemicals into the air...for any purpose...doesn't mean the trails we see have ANYTHING to do with the patent or process. It's pure assumption to believe that just because something you found on the internet involves "airplanes and spraying" that the trails must be related to the patent or process.

Many patents are filed for and are never made into a working model and not ever implemented. Now, this isn't to say that in the past...or even right now..someone isn't using one of these patents to spray something into the sky...I'm just saying that there isn't ANY evidence to link any trail in the sky, referred to as a "chemtrail", to any patent whatsoever. It's all speculation and assumptions...sorry!


Most chemtards are completely oblivious to to the world around them...and believe that they are supposed to have the right to pure, clean "air". There is no such thing...and never has been! There is always natural/man made products in our air...in varying quantities...from region to region...town to town...neighborhood to neighborhood. The industrial revolution has resulted in factories and industries spread all over the world...and each one of these facilities produces wastes based on their production and use of resources. There are many industries which use barium and aluminum in manufacturing and processes and these items end up in our air...all over the world.

Not to mention our personal contributions...Those of us with cars leave behind minute pieces of metal from internal friction...we create brake dust form our brake pads (guess what THEY are made of) we burn hydrocarbons and add water and combustion gases into the air through those processes. Chlorine from our pools is in the air...we spray all sorts of chemicals into the air with our household products. The HVAC industry is responsible for TONS of freon being but into our air...The list is literally endless...we are, and always have been, exposed to many chemicals and processes and you people focus on trails of water vapor in the sky?! It's just so sad that you people concentrate your efforts on such things...while ignoring/avoiding all the sources of pollution all around you.

I will be adding more things to this thread, based on the title, as I Think of them. Debunkers, feel free to add your own...chemtards, don't bother...This is a thread about what you people don't understand...there is an endless supply of threads with that information in them on GLP. No need to post your ignorance here.


Just because places have "banned chemtrails" or are working to do so, doesn't mean the trails in the sky are anything more than contrails. Any place which bans "chemtrails" will be in for a big surprise when it turns out that the trails remain in the sky....which they will...because they are contrails.
 Quoting: Noble


If anyone is in the LA area in August....


The Largest Stand Ever Against Chemtrails
[link to www.consciousnessbeyondchemtrails.com]
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/16/2012 10:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
The skies are white from 'geoengineering'. Geoengineering is a broad term for everything aerosolized applications are doing to the atmosphere.
Weather modification
Radar enhancement
Satellite imaging
Surveillance
.................to name a few
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14110447


That's a "claim"...

By default, the trails in the sky are contrails. It's up to YOU chemtards to provide evidence that the trails have anything to do with the things listed above...

You have all failed to do so..

Just sayin...

Just because you claim something to be...and then find nonsense through a google search for "chemtrails"...doesn't mean the trails are anything more than contrails.

I'm sorry, that's just a fact.

That is NOT to say the things you listed aren't happening...I just see no evidence that the things listed above result in long white trails that look EXACTLY like persistent contrails. And neither do you.
 Quoting: Noble



Sorta like google search for contard science or metabunk, huh?

I'm sure you must know by now that the Encyclopedia Britanica will only be available on the webz in another year or so. OH, my......................
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1611462


Nope, nothing like that. The info on contrailscience is backed up with all the literature ever written on the subjects. The shit you find is backed up by other paranoid chemtards...and no one else.
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/16/2012 10:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Chemtards don't understand some simple concepts...

For instance...

Chemtards have ZERO evidence that the trails in the sky are anything more than contrails.

Contrails can and DO spread out to fill the sky based on the how much moisture is already present, and how cold it is. This is a fact...not all contrails must dissipate within ANY time frame to be contrails. The atmospheric conditions determine how long a trail will last...or if it won't last at all.


Finding natural elements at ground level is evidence that natural elements are in nature...not that these elements (aluminum, barium, strontium...whatever) came from the trails.Natural elements are spread all around the earth through wind, water, erosion (wind and water) and many other natural processes including volcanoes, and the water cycle.


Those who disagree with the chemtards are NOT "disinfo-agents" or "shills". That's just ridiculous paranoid nonsense. One doesn't have to be working for "them" to point out that basic science and principles of aviation easily explain the trails in the sky. Just because I believe you to be wrong...and KNOW there is no evidence to support the chemtrail myth...Doesnt mean I'm a bad guy for pointing it out.



Just because someone finds a "patent" for a device or process for placing chemicals into the air...for any purpose...doesn't mean the trails we see have ANYTHING to do with the patent or process. It's pure assumption to believe that just because something you found on the internet involves "airplanes and spraying" that the trails must be related to the patent or process.

Many patents are filed for and are never made into a working model and not ever implemented. Now, this isn't to say that in the past...or even right now..someone isn't using one of these patents to spray something into the sky...I'm just saying that there isn't ANY evidence to link any trail in the sky, referred to as a "chemtrail", to any patent whatsoever. It's all speculation and assumptions...sorry!


Most chemtards are completely oblivious to to the world around them...and believe that they are supposed to have the right to pure, clean "air". There is no such thing...and never has been! There is always natural/man made products in our air...in varying quantities...from region to region...town to town...neighborhood to neighborhood. The industrial revolution has resulted in factories and industries spread all over the world...and each one of these facilities produces wastes based on their production and use of resources. There are many industries which use barium and aluminum in manufacturing and processes and these items end up in our air...all over the world.

Not to mention our personal contributions...Those of us with cars leave behind minute pieces of metal from internal friction...we create brake dust form our brake pads (guess what THEY are made of) we burn hydrocarbons and add water and combustion gases into the air through those processes. Chlorine from our pools is in the air...we spray all sorts of chemicals into the air with our household products. The HVAC industry is responsible for TONS of freon being but into our air...The list is literally endless...we are, and always have been, exposed to many chemicals and processes and you people focus on trails of water vapor in the sky?! It's just so sad that you people concentrate your efforts on such things...while ignoring/avoiding all the sources of pollution all around you.

I will be adding more things to this thread, based on the title, as I Think of them. Debunkers, feel free to add your own...chemtards, don't bother...This is a thread about what you people don't understand...there is an endless supply of threads with that information in them on GLP. No need to post your ignorance here.


Just because places have "banned chemtrails" or are working to do so, doesn't mean the trails in the sky are anything more than contrails. Any place which bans "chemtrails" will be in for a big surprise when it turns out that the trails remain in the sky....which they will...because they are contrails.
 Quoting: Noble


If anyone is in the LA area in August....


The Largest Stand Ever Against Chemtrails
[link to www.consciousnessbeyondchemtrails.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14542172


A chemtard convention...yawn...
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/16/2012 10:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
...


Read paragraph 2 on that page again...

S L O W L Y

loser
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


[link to www.exxonmobil.com]

Tables one, two, 19 and 20. . . read it and weep . . . verycool

Maximum Sulfur content 3,000 ppm. . .
 Quoting: George B


It still doesn't change the fact that paranoid idiots are pointing at contrails and calling them "chemtrails" when there is no evidence that they are anything but contrails.....which, by the way, are not "chemtrails".


I'm sure there is a logical, non nefarious, explanation for such research. Maybe you could CONTINUE trying to find it...instead of just jumping to conclusions.
 Quoting: Noble



Hilarious.

"I'm sure there is a logical, non nefarious, explanation for such research." (Jumps to conclusion)

"Maybe you could CONTINUE trying to find it...instead of just jumping to conclusions."(Proceeds to scold someone for jumping to conclusions in the very next sentence)

Find a new job Mr. counter intelligence operative.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14542172


You are an idiot. It's not jumping to conclusions to not be paranoid...by default, research is to benefit mankind. It's up to the one assuming the worst to provide the evidence to support the suppositions/accusations.

What a fucking loser you must be...


You people prove your paranoid ignorance with every post. Thanks for proving my points.
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 11:31 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
NASA Scientist proposes using commercial air traffic to alter local climates . . . ohno


[link to www-pm.larc.nasa.gov]

Solutions?

"In principle, it may be possible to selectively
Minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-
Induced cloudiness that will persist during the
night, when they would have a net warming
Effect, while intentionally increasing the forma-
tion of contrails early in the day, generating a
Daytime cooling. Current research is focused on
Accurately predicting the times and locations
At which contrails are liekely to persist for long
periods of time and spread over wide areas as
Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could
Help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on
Regional and global climate by incorporating it
Into operational air traffic control and routing
Systems."
David.P.Duda@nasa.gov

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 11:53 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 11:41 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
And you conveniently ignore this from your 'abstract':

At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content......The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail.

cruise
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Yes. . . . it supports my assumption . . . the whole effort was to test the visibility and persistence trends of geoengineering level concentrations of sulfur compounds in jet fuel . . . which by-the-way was done in 1995 . . coffee4 Sufficient time to integrate these findings into operational process . . .

Received 22 June 1995; accepted 27 October 1995; published 20 March 1996.

Citation: Schumann, U., J. Ström, R. Busen, R. Baumann, K. Gierens, M. Krautstrunk, F. P. Schröder, and J. Stingl (1996), In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 101(D3), 6853–6869, doi:10.1029/95JD03405.

[link to www.agu.org]
 Quoting: George B


Here is evidence that sulfur compounds (IMO, possibly form commercial air traffic with sulfur spiked fuels) are having an effect . . .

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.
[link to www.noaanews.noaa.gov]


My NOTE: There is no evidence the sulfur compounds are all from surface emissions . . . why . . . they were measured in or near the stratosphere . . . coffee4

Last Edited by George B on 06/16/2012 11:56 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
George B

User ID: 1219201
United States
06/16/2012 11:59 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Sulfur Graph

Last Edited by George B on 06/17/2012 07:44 AM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18064189
United States
06/17/2012 12:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
if there are no such things as chemtrails then those who dissiminate them won't start dropping like flies...

other than that

tally ho
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15706864
United States
06/17/2012 01:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
You people prove your paranoid ignorance with every post. Thanks for proving my points.
 Quoting: Noble


I don't know for certain what the truth of the chemtrail/contrail issue is and I'm not interested in spending time studying the "science."

Even if I did, I would have no way of knowing whether there the "facts" were verifiable or the statistics were skewed to favor one bias or another.

That's why only a fool would state his opinions on the matter with complete certainty.

So, OP, you are obviously a fool.


I do know this, however: If there is a nefarious intent on the part of TPTB behind the chemtrails, it would fit perfectly with the pattern of behavior that TPTB have displayed in other situations that are verifiable.

So, OP, when you repeatedly criticize your detractors as "paranoid", you are demonstrating that you are either:

A) Not well informed

B) A shill or

C) Just another sheeple who is too scared to admit that we live in a world where TPTB rain death and destruction down on their own "citizens" without a second thought.

In any case, OP, you have accomplished nothing but "showing your ass" for all of us to see. Now cover it up and crawl back under the rock from which you came!
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/17/2012 06:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
NASA Scientist proposes using commercial air traffic to alter local climates . . . ohno


[link to www-pm.larc.nasa.gov]

Solutions?

"In principle, it may be possible to selectively
Minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-
Induced cloudiness that will persist during the
night, when they would have a net warming
Effect, while intentionally increasing the forma-
tion of contrails early in the day, generating a
Daytime cooling. Current research is focused on
Accurately predicting the times and locations
At which contrails are liekely to persist for long
periods of time and spread over wide areas as
Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could
Help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on
Regional and global climate by incorporating it
Into operational air traffic control and routing
Systems."
David.P.Duda@nasa.gov
 Quoting: George B




proposing something, and doing it, are to VERY different things.

I guess you've never read popular science, and seen the visions of the future presented by the scientists over the decades.

Same thing....

Last Edited by Noble on 06/17/2012 06:18 AM
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/17/2012 06:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
And you conveniently ignore this from your 'abstract':

At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content......The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail.

cruise
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Yes. . . . it supports my assumption . . . the whole effort was to test the visibility and persistence trends of geoengineering level concentrations of sulfur compounds in jet fuel . . . which by-the-way was done in 1995 . . coffee4 Sufficient time to integrate these findings into operational process . . .

Received 22 June 1995; accepted 27 October 1995; published 20 March 1996.

Citation: Schumann, U., J. Ström, R. Busen, R. Baumann, K. Gierens, M. Krautstrunk, F. P. Schröder, and J. Stingl (1996), In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 101(D3), 6853–6869, doi:10.1029/95JD03405.

[link to www.agu.org]
 Quoting: George B


Here is evidence that sulfur compounds (IMO, possibly form commercial air traffic with sulfur spiked fuels) are having an effect . . .

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.
[link to www.noaanews.noaa.gov]


My NOTE: There is no evidence the sulfur compounds are all from surface emissions . . . why . . . they were measured in or near the stratosphere . . . coffee4
 Quoting: George B


And there is no evidence that natural processes and occurrences didn't result in that sulfur. As they have since the beginning of time itself.
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?

News