Chemtrails debunked.

IrelandSpirit · 25-03-2014 11:31am

pfurey101 wrote: »

Have not looked up the last few cold and crystal clear nights? Incredibly beautiful clear cold nights they were! You really do believe only what you want to believe, don't you? And unfortunately that is a common trait for a conspiracist - so no one should really try and convince you otherwise.

I have had an interest in weather and aviation and have been looking to the stars and blue and murky skies since the early 70's and NOTHING sticks out in my mind as having changed over the last 45 years!!! I'm out every Saturday and Sunday mornings with me boys at their football matches and there have been glorious mornings....when it's not windy and raining!

We have always had our cirrus cloudy days, cumulus cloudy days, hazy hot and cold days, crystal clear AND murky blue days. This is feckin Ireland!!!!!!

You are not being honest. All anyone needs to do is look up, to know you're not being honest. And /or if you think these are just normal clouds, then seriously, you need help.

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 12:02pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You are not being honest. All anyone needs to do is look up, to know you're not being honest. And /or if you think these are just normal clouds, then seriously, you need help.

I AM being honest and based on 32 years working in aircraft maintenance - those "white lines" are CONtrails..... and I am being honest.....there are NO such things a CHEMtrails (apart from crop sprayers that fly at 100 feet)

I have seen aircraft fly over with no trails, partial trails, broken trails, trails that vanish immediately, trails that stay for hours and either drift or don't drift.

Those videos are CONtrails and btw it has been speculated that these contrails reflect sunlight and assist in keeping global temperatures down. Hows that for a conspiracy!

YOU really need to be honest with yourself and listen, watch and read both sides of any argument. But hey......maybe I am part of the conspiracy

!

King Mob · 25-03-2014 12:03pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You are not being honest. All anyone needs to do is look up, to know you're not being honest. And /or if you think these are just normal clouds, then seriously, you need help.

What exactly about them isn't normal, and how do you know that they contain anything other than water vapour?

IrelandSpirit · 25-03-2014 12:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

What exactly about them isn't normal, and how do you know that they contain anything other than water vapour?

Read back. Even chemtrail denier Terry has established that we're at least dealing with pollution.

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 12:25pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Read back. Even chemtrail denier Terry has established that we're at least dealing with pollution.

No one ever said anything denying pollution.... any engine exhaust = pollution. Even though up to 80% of jet engine thrust comes from compressed air that bypasses the engines i.e. pollution free.

This is of course is the same pollution as in the millions of land vehicles, methane gasses, industrial burning, electricity power plants etc.

And it could be argued that jet exhaust is in fact the "cleanest" of all types of exhaust on the planet and causes less damage.

And there are only water droplets in contrails - along with the standard and known engine exhaust contaminants, which disperse differently.

IrelandSpirit · 25-03-2014 12:25pm

pfurey101 wrote: »

I AM being honest and based on 32 years working in aircraft maintenance

If that's true, then clearly you are a very confused individual and are denying the facts.

There were people who denied pollution existed back in the last century as well -- smog deniers -- even though then too, the pollution was clearly visible, and it took countless of people to get sick and die, poisoned, before these smog deniers were seen for what the were.

Even your chemtrail denier pal has established that we're at least dealing with pollution. Now, whether cheaper air fares are an acceptable trade-off for this pollution, as he claims, is perhaps what we should be dealing with.

Or which is it, you can't have it both ways, you're starting to sound a bit nuts.

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 12:33pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If that's true, then clearly you are a very confused individual and are denying the facts.

There were people who denied pollution existed back in the last century as well -- smog deniers -- even though then too, the pollution was clearly visible, and it took countless of people to get sick and die, poisoned, before these smog deniers were seen for what the were.

Even your chemtrail denier pal has established that we're at least dealing with pollution. Now, whether cheaper air fares are an acceptable trade-off for this pollution, as he claims, is perhaps what we should be dealing with.

Or which is it, you can't have it both ways, you're starting to sound a bit nuts.

Crossed postings there mister. See what I said above.

Aviation has been at the leading edge of enviromental friendly technology.Just Google images of B707's, DC-8's, Tridents and B52's taking off in the 60's. Them's were smokin in them days...pure 100% pollution by the megaton!

Those days are gone! The pollution isnt but not as severe as it was.

Brown Bomber · 25-03-2014 12:39pm

pfurey101 wrote: »

You really do believe only what you want to believe, don't you? And unfortunately that is a common trait for a conspiracist - so no one should really try and convince you otherwise.

This is just more of the Loch Ness Monster/Bigfoot bullshine repackaged. Both of you have formed your opinions based on your own personal observations and experiences. What gives you the right to label him while remaining unlabelled yourself.

I would be interested in your answer to the following questions:

Do you believe government(s) (that is western, democratic) etc would be too moral to test weapons in secret on their population?

If not, and I can't imagine you answering Yes to the previous question, even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were experiments, how would you best disguise aerial spraying of the skies?

King Mob · 25-03-2014 12:42pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Read back. Even chemtrail denier Terry has established that we're at least dealing with pollution.

No sorry, nowhere in the last few pages have you explained how to tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails.

Do you believe there are such thing as normal contrails?

Brown Bomber · 25-03-2014 12:48pm

pfurey101 wrote: »

Crossed postings there mister. See what I said above.

Aviation has been at the leading edge of enviromental friendly technology.Just Google images of B707's, DC-8's, Tridents and B52's taking off in the 60's. Them's were smokin in them days...pure 100% pollution by the megaton!

Those days are gone! The pollution isnt but not as severe as it was.

Likewise McDonalds is at the cutting edge of healthy eating as they now do salads.

IrelandSpirit · 25-03-2014 12:48pm

Those days are gone! The pollution isnt but not as severe as it was.

Clearly, those days are not gone, they've become worse as evidenced by the fact there so much aerial smog up there, it's even reducing our sunlight. You too confirm this. Is it a good thing for global warming as you claim? That's debatable. But is reducing natural sunlight a good thing for humans, for plants and life in general? No. Just on that level alone, we should all be arguing to clean up our skies.

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 1:01pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is just more of the Loch Ness Monster/Bigfoot bullshine repackaged. Both of you have formed your opinions based on your own personal observations and experiences. What gives you the right to label him while remaining unlabelled yourself.

I would be interested in your answer to the following questions:

Do you believe government(s) (that is western, democratic) etc would be too moral to test weapons in secret on their population?

If not, and I can't imagine you answering Yes to the previous question, even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were experiments, how would you best disguise aerial spraying of the skies?

Its obvious where you are going with this and I have read all the Robert Ludlum and Dan Browne books and of course the powers to be are up to all sorts of divilment but FFS don't give them that much credit as most of them are fools!

How can the 100,000's that have been employed in aviation the last 70 years kept quite about "chemtrails" maybe because they don't exist??????

While Wikileaks was a mass embarrassment for the US and caused no end of grief for the politicians, it was an awful revelation for conspiracists....no chemtrails, no secret Twin Tower destruction by Bush, no secret groups, no simulated moon landing, no Bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster....nothing mentioned nowhere!

I will repeat, of course they are up to no good as power corrupts - but don't give them that much credit as they seem to mess up most of what they touch!

Brown Bomber · 25-03-2014 1:13pm

pfurey101 wrote: »

Its obvious where you are going with this and I have read all the Robert Ludlum and Dan Browne books and of course the powers to be are up to all sorts of divilment but FFS don't give them that much credit as most of them are fools!

How can the 100,000's that have been employed in aviation the last 70 years kept quite about "chemtrails" maybe because they don't exist??????

While Wikileaks was a mass embarrassment for the US and caused no end of grief for the politicians, it was an awful revelation for conspiracists....no chemtrails, no secret Twin Tower destruction by Bush, no secret groups, no simulated moon landing, no Bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster....nothing mentioned nowhere!

I will repeat, of course they are up to no good as power corrupts - but don't give them that much credit as they seem to mess up most of what they touch!

To be fair I didn't ask you to describe your bookshelf; I asked you two simple questions.

Also, how many people worked on the Manhattan Project?

weisses · 25-03-2014 1:21pm

1 question

How can I distinguish a contrail from a chem-trail when looking up from the ground ?

Terry Gilliam Beard · 25-03-2014 1:48pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If that's true, then clearly you are a very confused individual and are denying the facts.

You keep mentioning 'facts', but you haven't given any. You just keep making strange claims.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There were people who denied pollution existed back in the last century as well

Nobody denies that they are pollution. I think you may be confused about what other people call 'chemtrails' - when conspiracy theorists use the term, they mean that the planes are deliberately spraying some chemicals that have nothing to do with the engines, with the intention of doing something evil to everyone (usually mind control or genocide).

If you believe that contrails are airplane exhaust gasses, containing water and various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel, you are absolutely right.

Terry Gilliam Beard · 25-03-2014 1:56pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, how many people worked on the Manhattan Project?

Many. But not nearly as many are claimed to be involved in this conspiracy for decades. And the Manhattan Project was rather easily contained - one country, one location, for a limited time, with a clear goal, during an episode of total war. And even then, they didn't keep it quiet for very long.

The Chemtrail conspiracists expect us to believe that this can go on all over the world for decades, hundreds of thousands of people involved, a massive ground operation that would dwarf what happens in the air (who makes the chemicals? who distributes them? who puts them on the plane? what part of the plane are they stored in? who designs and builds the planes without noticing the special spraying apparatus?)

You keep asking are familiar Manahattan Project. Of course we are. I trust you are familiar with Occam's Razor. Don't you think that hundreds of unanswered/unanswerable questions, claims that fly in the face of common sense, and a million other things point to this particular conspiracy being pure hokum? Or do you feel the need to defend every CT, regardless of how silly it is?

IrelandSpirit · 25-03-2014 2:04pm

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

You keep mentioning 'facts', but you haven't given any. You just keep making strange claims.

Nobody denies that they are pollution. I think you may be confused about what other people call 'chemtrails' - when conspiracy theorists use the term, they mean that the planes are deliberately spraying some chemicals that have nothing to do with the engines, with the intention of doing something evil to everyone (usually mind control or genocide).

If you believe that contrails are airplane exhaust gasses, containing water and various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel, you are absolutely right.

Yes, I do believe in 'normal' contrails. And also in persistent contrails, sometimes called chemtrails by some, which appear to have become the 'new normal' as regards contrails, or pollution, as evidenced by the fact there so much plane smog in our skies, it's even reducing our sunlight. We both know this is true, it has been established by NASA, by chemtrail deniers and believers alike.

And as you perhaps know, regardless of the toxicity of the methods employed ("various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel"), reducing natural sunlight is detrimental to our health, can lead to many diseases, from depression to cancer. PubMed is full of studies in that regard, if you're interested. Humans need natural sunlight, as do plants and life in general.

This in itself should stop any bickering over semantics, chemtrail vs contrail, and instead focus our effort to clean up the sky. We're all affected by this, you, me our children, everybody, whether you or I believe contrails are chemtrails, or visa versa is actually irrelevant -- the sky is a mess regardless, the sun is blotted out regardless.

This is what is meant by 'only a fool fights in a burning house.'

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 2:22pm

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Many. But not nearly as many are claimed to be involved in this conspiracy for decades. And the Manhattan Project was rather easily contained - one country, one location, for a limited time, with a clear goal, during an episode of total war. And even then, they didn't keep it quiet for very long.

The Chemtrail conspiracists expect us to believe that this can go on all over the world for decades, hundreds of thousands of people involved, a massive ground operation that would dwarf what happens in the air (who makes the chemicals? who distributes them? who puts them on the plane? what part of the plane are they stored in? who designs and builds the planes without noticing the special spraying apparatus?)

You keep asking are familiar Manahattan Project. Of course we are. I trust you are familiar with Occam's Razor. Don't you think that hundreds of unanswered/unanswerable questions, claims that fly in the face of common sense, and a million other things point to this particular conspiracy being pure hokum? Or do you feel the need to defend every CT, regardless of how silly it is?

This!

And there was no social media, internet, camera phones, online videos in those days. No one looking for their "5 minutes of fame". Different age and different mentality...as such.

Brown Bomber · 25-03-2014 2:27pm

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Many.

How many? You'll find it was the ACTUAL hundreds of thousands keeping an actual dirty secret - the development of a mass-murder weapon which kills indiscrimately, though according to you this is impossible for these imaginary hundreds of thousands figure that you've pulled out of your hat as a convenient strawman.

Brown Bomber · 25-03-2014 3:06pm

weisses wrote: »

1 question

How can I distinguish a contrail from a chem-trail when looking up from the ground ?

Confirmation bias.

pfurey101 · 25-03-2014 4:00pm

Brown Bomber and IrelandSpirit, you lads are gas - ignore everything else that is being said and focus on bit that suits your theories

The pollution may get you in the end - but not the chemtrails.......:rolleyes:

True conspiracists and to the cause you are!

Cheers

IrelandSpirit · 25-03-2014 4:26pm

pfurey101 wrote: »

Brown Bomber and IrelandSpirit, you lads are gas - ignore everything else that is being said and focus on bit that suits your theories

The pollution may get you in the end - but not the chemtrails.......:rolleyes:

True conspiracists and to the cause you are!

Cheers

Ignoring the facts? Not at all! Do you really think the various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel, blocking out natural sunlight is healthy? On any level?

You wouldn't put up with some wackjob spraying you and your family in the face with the same polluting chemicals, reducing your natural sunlight by as much as 30%, so why do you think it's acceptable when planes do it? Day in, day out.

Personally, the only thing I want to be sprayed with when I'm out walking the hills is my girlfriend's **** when she *** and that goes for blocking out natural sunlight as well, she has a nice ****. That's acceptable, anything else I have the right to take serious issue with! The right and duty. As do you.

Brown Bomber · 26-03-2014 12:20pm

pfurey101 wrote: »

Brown Bomber and IrelandSpirit, you lads are gas - ignore everything else that is being said and focus on bit that suits your theories

The pollution may get you in the end - but not the chemtrails.......:rolleyes:

True conspiracists and to the cause you are!

Cheers

It doesn't appear that you have taken in a single word I have said. a) I don't have any specific theories on this, as I've said. b) I don't believe I have ignored anything, by all means point out something that I have and I will be only to happy to unignore it.

On the other hand I am still waiting for the answers to two simple and direct questions I asked of you, so for you to be making such shallow accusations which you are actually guilty of yourself is a touch rich.

I suspect you will ignore this post or deflect again but here are the questions again:

I would be interested in your answer to the following questions:

Do you believe government(s) (that is western, democratic) etc would be too moral to test weapons in secret on their population?

If not, and I can't imagine you answering Yes to the previous question, even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were experiments, how would you best disguise aerial spraying of the skies?

Terry Gilliam Beard · 26-03-2014 5:33pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It doesn't appear that you have taken in a single word I have said. a) I don't have any specific theories on this, as I've said. b) I don't believe I have ignored anything, by all means point out something that I have and I will be only to happy to unignore it.

On the other hand I am still waiting for the answers to two simple and direct questions I asked of you, so for you to be making such shallow accusations which you are actually guilty of yourself is a touch rich.

I suspect you will ignore this post or deflect again but here are the questions again:

I would be interested in your answer to the following questions:

Do you believe government(s) (that is western, democratic) etc would be too moral to test weapons in secret on their population?

If not, and I can't imagine you answering Yes to the previous question, even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were experiments, how would you best disguise aerial spraying of the skies?

BB, you are not in a good position to complain about people ignoring posts. You ignored the whole of my previous post bar the first word, 'many'.

You are trying to conflate a secret nuclear research programme carried out during a war with the intention of attacking an enemy with a nebulous conspiracy carried on by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world against THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES, and THEIR FRIENDS.

You have ignored all the common-sense questions I put to you. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, ignoring the ridiculousness of the Chemtrail conspiracy rather than clearly stating that you either believe it is happening or it is not, possibly just for the sake of an argument.

So, even if you ignore all the other questions I put to you - answer this one: do you think there is a massive global chemtrail conspiracy going on?

Ignore this question if you choose, but if you do, please stop bleating about people ignoring your posts.

IrelandSpirit · 27-03-2014 11:01am

"As reported by the Swedish paper Katrineholms Kuriren, Hagberg, the first major political leader to come forward on the issue, has openly admitted that these unusual cloud trails, which fail to dissipate like normal contrails do, are actually a toxic mix of chemicals, viruses, and metals that she has collectively referred to as “chemtrails.”

http://consciouslifenews.com/swedish-official-admits-toxic-chemtrails-real-wild-conspiracy-theory-video-article/#

IrelandSpirit · 27-03-2014 11:03am

Malta beginning to realise that they too are being fumigated like cockroaches: “The Maltese population is owed an explanation as to how the trail formations like those seen recently in the sky, could take place.”

The Gaia Foundation announced that it will be lodging a formal request with the Transport and the Environment Authorities to investigate the incidents and to ask the airlines flying over and around Maltese airspace to provide “all the necessary information” to establish the nature and reason for the these cloud formations."

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/gaia-foundation-calls-for-more-transparency-on-cloud-formations/

MrPudding · 27-03-2014 2:26pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I wasn't a kid and there were plenty of planes, I was in my thirties when we first noticed the 'white lines' as we called them, 1998, living in the country.

I was a kid in the late 70s and was fasinated by contrails. Lots of them. If you were in your 30s in the late 90s and only started to notice contrails that is indicative of someone who is extremly unobservant or possibly partially blind, rather than a massive world wide conspiracy.

MrP

Daithi 1 · 27-03-2014 2:53pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/gaia-foundation-calls-for-more-transparency-on-cloud-formations/

Geo watch ? you have got to be joking.

IrelandSpirit · 27-03-2014 4:54pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I was a kid in the late 70s and was fasinated by contrails. Lots of them. If you were in your 30s in the late 90s and only started to notice contrails that is indicative of someone who is extremly unobservant or possibly partially blind, rather than a massive world wide conspiracy.

MrP

Yawn ... "As reported by the Swedish paper Katrineholms Kuriren, Hagberg, the first major political leader to come forward on the issue, has openly admitted that these unusual cloud trails, which fail to dissipate like normal contrails do, are actually a toxic mix of chemicals, viruses, and metals that she has collectively referred to as “chemtrails.”

http://consciouslifenews.com/swedish-official-admits-toxic-chemtrails-real-wild-conspiracy-theory-video-article/#

IrelandSpirit · 27-03-2014 5:11pm

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Geo watch ? you have got to be joking.

Oh, you think it's so lovely being a human-cockroach? enjoy your spray sky, sucker -- that's your world, you can only hope your kids (presuming you're still fertile or anybody will have you) will forgive your dumb-arss ...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3092/2616190281_3ba5ac4d2a_z.jpg

Chemtrails debunked.

Comments