Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Chem trails

1…789101113»

Comments

  • #602
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    uprising wrote: »
    You can bury your head in the sand, live in lala land, but the truth will be waiting when you get over your bout of denial. Look at the evidence.



    Do you 100% think there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from aeroplanes, because there's evidence which says it has happened, I say it still is happening.

    That post is very spannery. There was no need infer that I'm being wilfully ignorant and living in some sort of comforting dreamland. Accusing me of being in denial? That's insulting and you shouldn't attack the poster. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that your post was moronic. No man of reason would ever go on like that.

    Regarding your second paragraph, I find that straw-man to be retarded. I never suggested that "there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from aeroplanes".The first sentence of my post is enough for your question.

    That post of yours contributed nothing useful to this discussion and neither has my response.


  • #603
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    That post is very spannery. There was no need infer that I'm being wilfully ignorant and living in some sort of comforting dreamland. Accusing me of being in denial? That's insulting and you shouldn't attack the poster. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that your post was moronic. No man of reason would ever go on like that.

    Regarding your second paragraph, I find that straw-man to be retarded. I never suggested that "there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from aeroplanes".The first sentence of my post is enough for your question.

    That post of yours contributed nothing useful to this discussion and neither has my response.

    So you agree there are chemtrails?


  • #604
    Tetsudo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22 ✭Tetsudo


    On youtube there are 9,380 videos related to contrails. If you type chemtrail, you get 42,800. Most of those 42 thousand are home videos by random people that show somthing in the sky that they figured was unusual and decided to film.

    A few fakes here and there mean nothing really. Are we all to believe that all of a sudden, after nearly a century of flight, that people, for no apparent reason, all over the world, began to notice that fumes come out the back of planes?

    xD

    If i drove to the shop, leaving a massive white cloud of barium in my wake, which then expanded to cover the whole city, i would be arrested. I could claim that it was only exhaust fumes, but im afraid it would just not be believed.


  • #605
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    It's clear that the video with the chemtrails is the fake version. It even has a big plane flying in the background in one image :D. Also you can see the seams in the images where the original sky was cut out and the faked 'chemtrail' sky was pasted in. The agenda of course is to show that there are 'chemtrails' in children's cartoons and whoever put the video together faked the Hedi images as 'proof'.

    I read Tetsudo's post and have already responded to it.

    Ok no big deal, so it was some fukc-nut on youtube trying to show evidence of something for which there is plenty of evidence anyway.

    Or perhaps that image was released as cointelpro, and innocently picked up and then posted, to try and ridicule people. No big deal either way.


  • #606
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    uprising wrote: »
    So you agree there are chem-trails?

    I agree that chemicals get sprayed from planes, yes. It's a no-brainer.

    The main point from my post was that using planes at high altitude was a dumb way to deliver chemicals to organisms on the ground.


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Tetsudo wrote: »
    On youtube there are 9,380 videos related to contrails. If you type chemtrail, you get 42,800. Most of those 42 thousand are home videos by random people that show somthing in the sky that they figured was unusual and decided to film.

    A few fakes here and there mean nothing really. Are we all to believe that all of a sudden, after nearly a century of flight, that people, for no apparent reason, all over the world, began to notice that fumes come out the back of planes?

    xD

    If i drove to the shop, leaving a massive white cloud of barium in my wake, which then expanded to cover the whole city, i would be arrested. I could claim that it was only exhaust fumes, but im afraid it would just not be believed.

    Why would 'they' make them white and highly visible for everyone to see? If 'they' were spraying chemicals on us from high altitude, why not make them invisible?


  • #608
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Why would 'they' make them white and highly visible for everyone to see? If 'they' were spraying chemicals on us from high altitude, why not make them invisible?

    They could sky write "chemicals" and some people still wouldn't believe it, they can put their sybolism evrywhere and people still won't believe it, they hide things in plain sight so people will say "if they were doing that they'd hide it, so it can't be true"


  • #609
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I agree that chemicals get sprayed from planes, yes. It's a no-brainer.

    The main point from my post was that using planes at high altitude was a dumb way to deliver chemicals to organisms on the ground.

    That's actually a good point. When crop-dusters for example, need to deliver their load over a field, it's generally a localised area, a specific target. They fly low, but are high-profile - most people would run and duck for cover if they saw one about to fly over. Perhaps with the case of chemtrails, the target is, as has been suggested, large populated areas and it is therefore delivered at higher altitudes, and with a greater distribution rate - and it's low profile and won't attract (too much) attention, especially as contrails tend to form at higher altitudes.
    Perhaps?
    Aside from the 'convenience' of using the vast fleet of commercial airliners too.


  • #610
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Why would 'they' make them white and highly visible for everyone to see? If 'they' were spraying chemicals on us from high altitude, why not make them invisible?

    Well this is the thing, the two are easy to confuse for most of us, most people don't know what a contrail is - I mean they see a white trail behind a plane and don't stop to ask the questions we've been going into here. Not to say they might not be curious too, but perhaps they've simply not the time or have bought into the propaganda - for a lot of us it's unthinkable that elements of our government's would ever do such a thing to us anyway.


  • #611
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    uprising wrote: »
    They could sky write "chemicals" and some people still wouldn't believe it, they can put their sybolism evrywhere and people still won't believe it, they hide things in plain sight so people will say "if they were doing that they'd hide it, so it can't be true"

    best place to hide something is in plane (sic) sight ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    That's actually a good point. When crop-dusters for example, need to deliver their load over a field, it's generally a localised area, a specific target. They fly low, but are high-profile - most people would run and duck for cover if they saw one about to fly over. Perhaps with the case of chemtrails, the target is, as has been suggested, large populated areas and it is therefore delivered at higher altitudes, and with a greater distribution rate - and it's low profile and won't attract (too much) attention, especially as contrails tend to form at higher altitudes.
    Perhaps?
    Aside from the 'convenience' of using the vast fleet of commercial airliners too.


    The height is the problem. Those planes would need to be high up to cover a large country and at those altitudes, any dispersed chemical will have been very diluted by the time it reaches us, if it does at all. At low altitudes they would be very effective but far more noticeable. They would be above us all the time and it would be very noisy. Very expensive as well. I just don't see why planes would be considered.

    I don't think it's far-fetched to think that governments would use chemicals on their citizens. We have fluoride in our water for example. They could just add what they want to the reservoirs. They would be caught easily enough, though, as it's pretty trivial to have water tested.

    Using smokestacks or incinerators might be a better way to scatter it. It's a bit less conspicuous but you would still need quite a lot of them. Although, if you were only interested in covering a city like Dublin, you wouldn't need many at all.

    But I definitely don't think planes would be the method of a ruling elite.


  • #613
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    The height is the problem. Those planes would need to be high up to cover a large country and at those altitudes, any dispersed chemical will have been very diluted by the time it reaches us, if it does at all. At low altitudes they would be very effective but far more noticeable. They would be above us all the time and it would be very noisy. Very expensive as well. I just don't see why planes would be considered.

    I don't think it's far-fetched to think that governments would use chemicals on their citizens. We have fluoride in our water for example. They could just add what they want to the reservoirs. They would be caught easily enough, though, as it's pretty trivial to have water tested.

    Using smokestacks or incinerators might be a better way to scatter it. It's a bit less conspicuous but you would still need quite a lot of them. Although, if you were only interested in covering a city like Dublin, you wouldn't need many at all.

    But I definitely don't think planes would be the method of a ruling elite.

    This is it, good points there, I have trouble with a lot of it too - and if the intent was to poison us with chemicals outright there are far more expedient methods, as you suggest. And they're already doing that anyway.... I don't know, I really don't... it does obviously boil down to the intent, to what the first target might be - perhaps it's not about causing outright harm - no, let me rephrase that, perhaps the chemicals being sprayed are not supposed to kill, (though obviously we know many 'incurable' diseases are on the rise) because too people dropping dead in the street all at once would draw too much attention. But if this is part of a population reduction agenda, perhaps chemtrails only add to all the other junk we're poisoned with daily, such as fluoride as you say: weaken large populations slowly over time, destroy our immune systems - barium, from what I've read does appear to do this. Aluminium is a well-established cause of brain degenerative diseases...

    .... there also appears to be organic elements to this too - Chemtrails are a cocktail of vile stuff that people have analysed: Bariumblues website's has a lot of info on what's been found in rainfall after heavy spraying.
    But we're only talking about population reduction here, and that might not be the first target at all, an operation of this scale and co-ordination would probably be multi-pronged - I imagine the opportunities it would throw up would be too 'good' to miss, to combine other agendas: weather manipulation, testing HAARP Tesla-style weaponry, testing bio-weapons, airborne vaccines and so on. It's a great opportunity.

    Building a shield to protect us from the sun? Under the guise of combating 'global warming' and saving the world, anybody involved on the lower echelons would go along with a lot of things...

    Whatever's going on, it's been done without our consent so like any black ops, it'll be heavily compartmentalised and the left hand won't know what the right hand's doing anyway.

    Bottom line, at this stage still, I reckon nobody knows the full extent of it... all I know is that 'something' is VERY wrong with our skies, for the last 10 years or so, and there's some fukcin nasty ****t coming down in our rain...


  • #614
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    uprising wrote: »
    "The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
    ...http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
    Wake up and smell the coffee.
    Thats England, not Ireland.


  • #615
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    But contrails are short and don't do much, they last for mere minutes, at most, whereas chemtrails go on, and on, and on in long streaks across the sky... and gradually widen, over hours, expanding to cover the entire sky.

    I've seen both these types of trails (as have others) being formed on the same day and in stable weather conditions.

    That is just too big a difference in effect to be initiated by the same cause.
    This is, I believe, what lies at the heart of the issue.

    If it is correct that contrails cannot last more then a couple of minutes, then it follows that something which does last is not a contrail.

    If it is correct that stable weather conditions mean that every plane in the sky (or in a section of sky) should produce similar effects, then seeing different effects should indicate that something unusual is happening.

    From my side, though, I've never seen a convincing argument why contrails can't persist, nor that stable weather conditions should mean that planes seperated by unknown distances must generate the same effects. If there's one out there that someone finds convincing, I'd be interested in hearing it, or having a link to it.

    Now, of course, given my previous stance, there is an onus to establish reasoning why contrails can persist...and I'll readily accept that "we see them persisting, ergo they can" is weak.

    Here's my understanding of it...

    The closer conditions are to a cloud-formation state, the longer the contrail can persist. In effect, the contrail becomes a cloud...the contrail itself creates a localised effect sufficient to change the condition from "not quite at cloud formation" to "is a cloud". If overall conditions move slightly in the right direction, then clouds form naturally...which can give the appearance of a contrail spreading out to cover the sky.

    When we look at normal clouds, even in stable weather, its not always the case that the entire sky is covered by cloud...and rarely if ever the case that the clouds exist at every altitude. This then would indicate that its possible to have differing conditions (with respect to cloud formation) in the sky at the same time, seperated by height or distance. If, then, we apply that reasoning to the notion of contrail-persistence being very similar to cloud-formation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that we can have planes, seperated by altitude, distance and/or time, generating different effects.

    Its worth remembering that when we see high-flying aircraft, they can be seperated by hundreds or thousands of vertical meters, with very little to tell us so from ground-based, naked-eye observation. Similarly, the distance they appear to be from each other (ignoring altitude) can also be deceptive. They may appear close by each other, but given how far away they are, they could be seperated by (again) thousands of meters.


  • #616
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    best place to hide something is in plane (sic) sight ;)

    Best way to hide something is make it invisible.


  • #617
    Torakx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    i believe there is alot more to it than mentioned on this page.
    i vaguely remember watching a good while ago videos on these chemtrails and contrails and it was mentioned also the places where these trails come from on the planes.
    i think it was shown that alot of these planes had trails coming out of the tips of there wings in some instances but i really dont remember too wlel exactly where it was.
    just thought id mention that for others if interested in researching this for themselves.

    oh and also the barium that has been coming down on top of people and growing out of there skin. if barium has been proven to come from these contrails i would say thats a pretty good link.or that mysterious gelatanus substance that fell in north west ireland and also i hear before that canada seems a little suspicious since afaik it is an unrecognized substance unexpplainable by convention means.


  • #618
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    bonkey wrote: »
    This is, I believe, what lies at the heart of the issue.

    If it is correct that contrails cannot last more then a couple of minutes, then it follows that something which does last is not a contrail.

    If it is correct that stable weather conditions mean that every plane in the sky (or in a section of sky) should produce similar effects, then seeing different effects should indicate that something unusual is happening.

    From my side, though, I've never seen a convincing argument why contrails can't persist, nor that stable weather conditions should mean that planes seperated by unknown distances must generate the same effects. If there's one out there that someone finds convincing, I'd be interested in hearing it, or having a link to it.

    Now, of course, given my previous stance, there is an onus to establish reasoning why contrails can persist...and I'll readily accept that "we see them persisting, ergo they can" is weak.

    Here's my understanding of it...

    The closer conditions are to a cloud-formation state, the longer the contrail can persist. In effect, the contrail becomes a cloud...the contrail itself creates a localised effect sufficient to change the condition from "not quite at cloud formation" to "is a cloud". If overall conditions move slightly in the right direction, then clouds form naturally...which can give the appearance of a contrail spreading out to cover the sky.

    When we look at normal clouds, even in stable weather, its not always the case that the entire sky is covered by cloud...and rarely if ever the case that the clouds exist at every altitude. This then would indicate that its possible to have differing conditions (with respect to cloud formation) in the sky at the same time, seperated by height or distance. If, then, we apply that reasoning to the notion of contrail-persistence being very similar to cloud-formation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that we can have planes, seperated by altitude, distance and/or time, generating different effects.

    Its worth remembering that when we see high-flying aircraft, they can be seperated by hundreds or thousands of vertical meters, with very little to tell us so from ground-based, naked-eye observation. Similarly, the distance they appear to be from each other (ignoring altitude) can also be deceptive. They may appear close by each other, but given how far away they are, they could be seperated by (again) thousands of meters.

    Thanks Bonkey, balanced and well-reasoned there. I wish I can reciprocate in kind but I'm not an expert on cloud formation - my understanding of most scientific fields is at best rudimentary, and I wish I could provide some links for you - though either way, I wouldn't be sure as to which arguments are valid for or against the persistence of normal contrails.

    I do, however, remember that deep, clear azure sky we used get and not that long ago. I'm an artist, I don't just remember that's what the sky looked like, but I have vivid paintings of that sky. I lived in the country for many years, on the west coast (without tv) and you can't help but notice these things anyway, if you have a sensitivity and appreciation of nature - even the subtle qualities of the light changing in the evening becomes something you look forward to, if you follow me.

    Ok, I know none of this sounds scientific on the surface, unless we acknowledge that observation is at the heart of science. And it has been pointed out to me that the increase of air traffic might be the cause - that it's simply a case of more planes producing more contrails. The problem with that argument is the sheer numbers, the scale of these persistent contrails, and in such a short space of time.

    I do believe that under certain weather conditions contrails would persist and form 'clouds', like you say, but I'm mainly drawing from my experience of what the sky used to look like prior the late 90s, and to be honest I don't actually recall that was the case - at least not with the regularity we're observing today.

    Sure we'd see contrails, but they vanished in minutes and didn't hang around all day - persistent contrails must have been rare, in other words, and wasn't a concern (aesthetically), so I didn't pay attention to the phenomena.

    Since then though, you can't help but notice that the sky is destroyed on most days, in comparison to what it used to look like. I can see it is, I only need to watch what happens on any given (rare) sunny morning to know, from direct experience that those 'contrails' are not normal; that basically, the sky looks 'wrong'; that the shades and colour of it is all... just wrong.

    In any case, accept what i'm saying or don't - I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't know why this is happening, I only know that it is happening.

    And it fukcing makes my blood boil.


  • #619
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    I do, however, remember that deep, clear azure sky we used get and not that long ago. I'm an artist, I don't just remember that's what the sky looked like, but I have vivid paintings of that sky. I lived in the country for many years, on the west coast (without tv) and you can't help but notice these things anyway, if you have a sensitivity and appreciation of nature - even the subtle qualities of the light changing in the evening becomes something you look forward to, if you follow me.
    I follow you.

    Ironically, the changes you've seen over the past few decades are most likely from air quality improving then anything else!

    Its tangentially related to the whole idea of chem-trails and all. Mostly, we're told that these things have started appearing since sometime in the 80s. Even if we take that to be true, that would roughly coincide with when concerted efforts were made to stop dumping masses of pollution into our atmosphere.
    Ok, I know none of this sounds scientific on the surface, unless we acknowledge that observation is at the heart of science.
    Observation is the heart of science. Its worth remembering though that in scientifi9c terms, observation is not someone remembering seeing something, through the (potentially rose-tinted) glasses of memory, but rather the direct recording of observation.
    And it has been pointed out to me that the increase of air traffic might be the cause - that it's simply a case of more planes producing more contrails. The problem with that argument is the sheer numbers, the scale of these persistent contrails, and in such a short space of time.
    I don't think anyone has ever argued that it is simply a case of more planes. Thats one contributing factor. The changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, and any number of other factors all contribute.
    I do believe that under certain weather conditions contrails would persist and form 'clouds', like you say, but I'm mainly drawing from my experience of what the sky used to look like prior the late 90s, and to be honest I don't actually recall that was the case - at least not with the regularity we're observing today.

    Sure we'd see contrails, but they vanished in minutes and didn't hang around all day - persistent contrails must have been rare, in other words, and wasn't a concern (aesthetically), so I didn't pay attention to the phenomena.

    Since then though, you can't help but notice that the sky is destroyed on most days, in comparison to what it used to look like. I can see it is, I only need to watch what happens on any given (rare) sunny morning to know, from direct experience that those 'contrails' are not normal; that basically, the sky looks 'wrong'; that the shades and colour of it is all... just wrong.
    It seems you're contradicting yourself here. One one hand, you say that you on most days the sky is destroyed from these things....but that its only on rare sunny mornings that you have direct experience of this "wrongness" (as you see it).
    In any case, accept what i'm saying or don't - I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't know why this is happening, I only know that it is happening.

    And it fukcing makes my blood boil.

    THis is what I don't understand. I accept that you're seeing what you see. I accept you telling me that you're not scientifically literate enough to understand what processes may or may not be at play.

    You accept that things have changed, and effectively admit that you don't know why they have changed or what has changed them.

    Why does not knowing make your blood boil? More importantly, if not knowing makes your blood boil, wouldn't the obvious thing be to invest time in finding out what is happening?


  • #620
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Torakx wrote: »
    .............. mysterious gelatanus substance that fell in north west ireland and also i hear before that canada seems a little suspicious since afaik it is an unrecognized substance unexpplainable by convention means.


    Water-soluble polymer, Dyn-O-Mat probably. Available for more maybe ten years now.


  • #621
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    bonkey wrote: »
    I follow you.

    Ironically, the changes you've seen over the past few decades are most likely from air quality improving then anything else!

    Its tangentially related to the whole idea of chem-trails and all. Mostly, we're told that these things have started appearing since sometime in the 80s. Even if we take that to be true, that would roughly coincide with when concerted efforts were made to stop dumping masses of pollution into our atmosphere.

    My understanding, from researching the subject and from observation, chemtrails became acute during the late 90s. But that aside, I fail to see how you can claim that this increase of chemtrails is most likely from air quality improving then anything else. Chemtrails, at the very best, is pollution. What you say is a complete contradiction.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Observation is the heart of science. Its worth remembering though that in scientifi9c terms, observation is not someone remembering seeing something, through the (potentially rose-tinted) glasses of memory, but rather the direct recording of observation.

    Thanks for acknowledging that observation is at the heart of science. However, I am not looking through rose-tinted glasses at some mythological past when it was safe to drink tap water and skies were sky-blue - this has been observed to have happened in living memory. It has been recorded by many researchers and in accepted mediums used in the scientific process, such as photography and film, and for a number of years now.
    bonkey wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has ever argued that it is simply a case of more planes. Thats one contributing factor. The changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, and any number of other factors all contribute.

    Sweet Jeezus! You're talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, as if these things are somehow natural, like a natural extension of changing weather patterns or something. Please, where talking about pollution, and quite probably the intentional poisoning of large sections of our planet - the only planet we've got. We are all affected by this, whether it's on a purely aesthetic perspective that I was trying to engage, or by the subsequent dangers to our health and well-being from whatever the fukc is in our air, and coming down in rainfall into our water, our foods.
    bonkey wrote: »
    It seems you're contradicting yourself here. One one hand, you say that you on most days the sky is destroyed from these things....but that its only on rare sunny mornings that you have direct experience of this "wrongness" (as you see it).

    Where is the contradiction? I think you might have misread this there. I am saying that a typically sunny day will begin with clear skies, and by the end of that day it will be covered in muck - i.e chemtrails.
    bonkey wrote: »
    THis is what I don't understand. I accept that you're seeing what you see. I accept you telling me that you're not scientifically literate enough to understand what processes may or may not be at play.

    You accept that things have changed, and effectively admit that you don't know why they have changed or what has changed them.

    Why does not knowing make your blood boil? More importantly, if not knowing makes your blood boil, wouldn't the obvious thing be to invest time in finding out what is happening?

    Either you're clutching at straws here, or purposefully misreading my post, at this stage I don't know which - seriously, I credit you with more integrity than that. I'm not saying it makes my blood boil because I don't know what these chemtrails are, I'm saying that it makes my blood boil that they are there at all. Nothing's been done about it! It's like waking up in some Kafka-esque nightmare surrounded by lobotomised walking dead - try broach the subject with most people and they look at you as if you've grown two heads, and I am obviously at least trying to inform myself or I wouldn't be here.

    Look, I might not understand the science behind chemtrails, I am not a chemist, but I do know that at least two of the components, barium and aluminium, are extremely hazardous toxic materials - and we need clean air to breathe, and clean water to drink, and good food to eat. Minimum.


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    [quote=IrelandSpirit;But that aside, I fail to see how you can claim that this increase of chemtrails is most likely from air quality improving then anything else. Chemtrails, at the very best, is pollution. What you say is a complete contradiction.[/quote]

    I didn't say that at all. I said that the change in colour of sky that you're seeing is most likely due to a decrease in air pollution, not an increase....the deep azure you saw which you don't see any more was an artefact of dirtier skies, not cleaner ones.
    Thanks for acknowledging that observation is at the heart of science. However, I am not looking through rose-tinted glasses at some mythological past when it was safe to drink tap water and skies were sky-blue - this has been observed to have happened in living memory. It has been recorded by many researchers and in accepted mediums used in the scientific process, such as photography and film, and for a number of years now.
    In your previous post, the only claim you made about azure skies was that you remembered them. I was pointing out that this isn't what science considers to be observation. If you're saying that researchers have recorded and analysed this change...then I'll readily accept that this is scientific in nature, and would be most interested in seeing or reading about the research.
    Sweet Jeezus! You're talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, as if these things are somehow natural, like a natural extension of changing weather patterns or something. Please, where talking about pollution, and quite probably the intentional poisoning of large sections of our planet - the only planet we've got.
    I'm talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines etc. to explain why these so-called chemtrails are not necessarily anything other than plain-old contrails.


    This isn't the Green Issues forum. If you want to get angry about pollution, then perhaps thats where you should go. If you want to discuss whether or not this particular form of pollution is something other then a normal contrail, then this is the place.
    Where is the contradiction? I think you might have misread this there. I am saying that a typically sunny day will begin with clear skies, and by the end of that day it will be covered in muck - i.e chemtrails.
    How often would you see such sunny days?
    Either you're clutching at straws here, or purposefully misreading my post, at this stage I don't know which - seriously, I credit you with more integrity than that. I'm not saying it makes my blood boil because I don't know what these chemtrails are,
    By saying they are chemtrails, you are explicitly taking a stance that tehse are not contrails.

    You then go on to say that you don't know what they are, and have admitted to not understanding the science of contrail formation, meaning you don't know whether or not they are contrails.

    You're about to go on and make a claim about the chemical content, despite having claimed that you don't know whether or not these could be normal contrails because you don't understand the science. If they were normal contrails, then where would this barium and aluminium bee coming from?

    Look, I might not understand the science behind chemtrails, I am not a chemist, but I do know that at least two of the components, barium and aluminium, are extremely hazardous toxic materials

    Leaving aside the assertion that aluminium - one of the most common elements on teh planet, and one that we use widely in every aspect of our daily lives - is hazardously toxic...

    ...Exactly what leads you to believe that these are present in wat you are calling chemtrails?


  • #623
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    This is it, good points there, I have trouble with a lot of it too - and if the intent was to poison us with chemicals outright there are far more expedient methods, as you suggest. And they're already doing that anyway.... I don't know, I really don't... it does obviously boil down to the intent, to what the first target might be - perhaps it's not about causing outright harm - no, let me rephrase that, perhaps the chemicals being sprayed are not supposed to kill, (though obviously we know many 'incurable' diseases are on the rise) because too people dropping dead in the street all at once would draw too much attention. But if this is part of a population reduction agenda, perhaps chemtrails only add to all the other junk we're poisoned with daily, such as fluoride as you say: weaken large populations slowly over time, destroy our immune systems - barium, from what I've read does appear to do this. Aluminium is a well-established cause of brain degenerative diseases...

    .... there also appears to be organic elements to this too - Chemtrails are a cocktail of vile stuff that people have analysed: Bariumblues website's has a lot of info on what's been found in rainfall after heavy spraying.
    But we're only talking about population reduction here, and that might not be the first target at all, an operation of this scale and co-ordination would probably be multi-pronged - I imagine the opportunities it would throw up would be too 'good' to miss, to combine other agendas: weather manipulation, testing HAARP Tesla-style weaponry, testing bio-weapons, airborne vaccines and so on. It's a great opportunity.

    Building a shield to protect us from the sun? Under the guise of combating 'global warming' and saving the world, anybody involved on the lower echelons would go along with a lot of things...

    Whatever's going on, it's been done without our consent so like any black ops, it'll be heavily compartmentalised and the left hand won't know what the right hand's doing anyway.

    Bottom line, at this stage still, I reckon nobody knows the full extent of it... all I know is that 'something' is VERY wrong with our skies, for the last 10 years or so, and there's some fukcin nasty ****t coming down in our rain...

    You touched on biological agents there and that got me thinking. Chem-trails might be a practical way to deliver nasty micro-organisms or nano-bots of some sort. Some nano-technology or bio-warfare materials might need to be deployed at high altitude to be effective. I don't have enough information to discount that. I still stand by the opinion that they would be a poor way do distribute chemicals


  • #624
    Torakx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    the reasons could be many.
    i think one of the main issues people have with the skies being sprayed with "contrails" is the barium found after these "contrails" have settled to spread across the sky.

    now i dont mind calling them contrails if it makes people feel more relaxed but can we all agree there is something wrong when there is barium coming out the ar$e of a plane and landing in peoples lungs?

    also afaik this gel like substance still has not been explained by any scientist.
    if it has id appreciate some info via links so i can see what the story is.
    i believe it was tested in canada and there were components in it that were unidentifiable.
    if that still stands true then i would consider the reason for putting these things in contrails to be along the lines of genetic manipulation be it of humans,animals,plants or water.
    while it does block out alot of the sky it doesnt seem to me to be the main intention or goal.(although there are theories on nibiru behind the sun and thats why but im skeptical of that one for now )
    i also think its quite possible it is to do with HAARP technology.

    either way there has been evidence of barium falling from the skies.
    even if it is not a conspiracy surely the government would want to look into such a threat on behalf of public health....or why else would they promote healthy things like the flu vaccine :D
    the more i think about the bull that our government lays on its people the more i pray real terrorists actually start to come about and show the governments how its done via taking down the system.sounds crazy but i would rather see half the world die to chaos then 3/4 to ignorance.jhope that doesnt offend it is just my expression of how i feel about these things sometimes.

    ps i have not seen evidence of barium falling from irish skies. only the gel type substance which has not been verified afaik in i think north west ireland somewhere.i do know there are contrails similar to the ones in those documentaries so i am presuming there isnt a third type of contrail i havent heard about and they are indeed the same as the ones in canada.i would test it myself if i knew how.


  • #625
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Torakx wrote: »

    also afaik this gel like substance still has not been explained by any scientist.
    if it has id appreciate some info via links so i can see what the story is.
    i believe it was tested in canada and there were components in it that were unidentifiable.

    http://www.aboutus.org/Dynomat.com


  • #626
    Torakx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    squod wrote: »
    http://www.aboutus.org/Dynomat.com

    thank you for the link.
    i still am having trouble finding dynomat.com it doesnt seem to be up or exist.
    also i cant find any info other than links to other weathermod websites.
    if you have a site which explains that same substance found in canada that was tested i would like to look through it.
    the gel found in ireland i have only seen pictures i think so for all i know it could be a big coincedence and it is actually from airplane toilets or whatever.

    afaik there was no need for pollution control/weather modification in canada where that stuff landed from the sky. same goes for north west ireland.


  • #627
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    You touched on biological agents there and that got me thinking. Chem-trails might be a practical way to deliver nasty micro-organisms or nano-bots of some sort. Some nano-technology or bio-warfare materials might need to be deployed at high altitude to be effective. I don't have enough information to discount that. I still stand by the opinion that they would be a poor way do distribute chemicals

    High-altitude dispersal is a poor way to distribute...well...anything, really.

    One of the best-documented cases of atmospheric dispersal would be Chernobyl...and its pretty amazing to read how far things spread. Belarus...Russia...Sweden...Finland....Ireland...the list goes on.

    So when people see what they think are chemtrails overhead, one thing you can say with almost-certainty is that whatever-it-is is not going to land on you. It'll land miles away...perhaps hundreds or even thousands of miles away...some hours or days later.


  • #628
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    bonkey wrote: »
    High-altitude dispersal is a poor way to distribute...well...anything, really.

    One of the best-documented cases of atmospheric dispersal would be Chernobyl...and its pretty amazing to read how far things spread. Belarus...Russia...Sweden...Finland....Ireland...the list goes on.

    So when people see what they think are chemtrails overhead, one thing you can say with almost-certainty is that whatever-it-is is not going to land on you. It'll land miles away...perhaps hundreds or even thousands of miles away...some hours or days later.

    You contradict yourself here, and lend support to the fact that high-altitude dispersal is a perfect way to distribute chemicals over large areas.

    'It'll land miles away', ok, but they are doing this all over the Earth. If it is sprayed here, it might land in Britain - if it is sprayed in Britain it might land here, and so on.

    But if it is sprayed everywhere, then it will land everywhere.

    Yes, including here.


  • #629
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Torakx wrote: »
    thank you for the link.
    i still am having trouble finding dynomat.com it doesnt seem to be up or exist.
    also i cant find any info other than links to other weathermod websites.
    if you have a site which explains that same substance found in canada that was tested i would like to look through it.
    the gel found in ireland i have only seen pictures i think so for all i know it could be a big coincedence and it is actually from airplane toilets or whatever.

    There's a copy of a patent, here.
    http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails/DynoPatent.html


    The instant application discloses a method of modifying weather by seeding storm clouds with a polymer. The storm clouds are seeded by dispersing a superabsorbent polymer into the cloud in sufficient quantities to cause a large absorption of water. The reaction of the water with the polymer creates a gel-like substance that precipitates to the surface
    Torakx wrote: »
    afaik there was no need for pollution control/weather modification in canada where that stuff landed from the sky. same goes for north west ireland.

    Which is why I've been googling flight paths and time tables etc. In the hope of finding the Irish versions of these yokes.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63852391&postcount=554

    No luck.


  • #630
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    bonkey wrote: »
    I didn't say that at all. I said that the change in colour of sky that you're seeing is most likely due to a decrease in air pollution, not an increase....the deep azure you saw which you don't see any more was an artefact of dirtier skies, not cleaner ones.

    Are you serious??? lovely clear blue skies are dirty?

    Are we in Room 101?
    bonkey wrote: »
    In your previous post, the only claim you made about azure skies was that you remembered them. I was pointing out that this isn't what science considers to be observation. If you're saying that researchers have recorded and analysed this change...then I'll readily accept that this is scientific in nature, and would be most interested in seeing or reading about the research.

    Hold on, but you just agreed that there has been changes in the colour of the sky (because the sky is 'cleaner' and not as blue as it was) and now you're asking me to provide you with research data proving what you already know to be fact?

    I went through a similar period of denial too, I think everybody who researches CTs goes through it at some point or another - it's perfectly natural - but the sooner we all cop on, the sooner they'll be enough of us to at least try to do something to stop this.
    bonkey wrote: »
    I'm talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines etc. to explain why these so-called chemtrails are not necessarily anything other than plain-old contrails.

    A 737 is a 737, what changes?

    What has definitely changed is that a contrail is no longer just a contrail.
    bonkey wrote: »
    This isn't the Green Issues forum. If you want to get angry about pollution, then perhaps thats where you should go. If you want to discuss whether or not this particular form of pollution is something other then a normal contrail, then this is the place.

    I am obviously discussing whether or not this particular form of pollution is something other then a normal contrail. You are the one whose insisting that chemtrails are perfectly normal.
    bonkey wrote: »
    How often would you see such sunny days?

    Errrr... hardly ever anymore, summer's are pretty fukced too, must be all this 'global warming' we've been getting, though for some reason, I find there's a better chance early morning. What's you're point anyway?
    bonkey wrote: »
    By saying they are chemtrails, you are explicitly taking a stance that tehse are not contrails.

    Yes, that's my stance, chemtrails are not contrails. Explicitly.
    bonkey wrote: »
    You then go on to say that you don't know what they are, and have admitted to not understanding the science of contrail formation, meaning you don't know whether or not they are contrails.

    Yes I admit that I do not know the science behind it. I'll venture out here on a limb and say a contrail is composed of water vapour and disperses quite rapidly. And a chemtrail is composed of a cocktail of chemicals and particulates, such as aluminium, around which water droplets will form into something resembling a cloud. Thus keeping them suspended in the sky for long periods.

    Either way, I do know the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail by observing the effect. One's short-lived, and the other hangs around in the sky all day blotting out the sun and generally making my life miserable...
    bonkey wrote: »
    You're about to go on and make a claim about the chemical content, despite having claimed that you don't know whether or not these could be normal contrails because you don't understand the science. If they were normal contrails, then where would this barium and aluminium bee coming from?

    How do you know what claim I was about to go on and make? Lol! Can you read my mind?

    But I agree, if chemtrails were normal contrails, there would not be barium and aluminium analysed in the rainfall after spraying, and they would rapidly disperse like normal contrails do.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Leaving aside the assertion that aluminium - one of the most common elements on teh planet, and one that we use widely in every aspect of our daily lives - is hazardously toxic... Exactly what leads you to believe that these are present in wat you are calling chemtrails?

    news station confirms barium in chemtrails

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

    The above link: amongst the first reports on anything resembling mainstream media, and one of the interesting things about it is the clear distinction they make between a contrail and a chemtrail.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    news station confirms barium in chemtrails

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

    The above link: amongst the first reports on anything resembling mainstream media, and one of the interesting things about it is the clear distinction they make between a contrail and a chemtrail.

    Thought we shouldnt trust mainstream media? Maybe this is the disinfo everyone keeps talking about and theres no such thing as chemtrails.


  • #632
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    Are we in Room 101?
    You don't know what "Room 101" is, do you?


  • #633
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    Zulu wrote: »
    You don't know what "Room 101" is, do you?

    "You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world."

    George Orwell Nineteen Eighty-Four


  • #634
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    thecommander wrote: »
    Thought we shouldnt trust mainstream media? Maybe this is the disinfo everyone keeps talking about and theres no such thing as chemtrails.

    Nope, don't trust it, but I do trust it to hijack, and spin a narrative the way governments dictate when in damage-control mode.

    I wish it were just dissinfo and there were no such thing as chemtrails......


  • #635
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    bonkey wrote: »
    High-altitude dispersal is a poor way to distribute...well...anything, really.

    One of the best-documented cases of atmospheric dispersal would be Chernobyl...and its pretty amazing to read how far things spread. Belarus...Russia...Sweden...Finland....Ireland...the list goes on.

    So when people see what they think are chemtrails overhead, one thing you can say with almost-certainty is that whatever-it-is is not going to land on you. It'll land miles away...perhaps hundreds or even thousands of miles away...some hours or days later.

    Exactly. It's not that I think drugging or poisoning the population doesn't happen. It's just that if it does, then it will be in a cost-effective and inconspicuous way. Noone is going to paint the sky with evidence and piggyback on ads for specsavers.


  • #636
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    A 737 is a 737, what changes?
    Engines.

    A few years ago, Ryanair flew second-hand 737-100 (or maybe -200?) airplanes. These had low-bypass turbofan engines mounted directly to the wings, and were noisy and dirty as hell.

    Now the entire Ryanair fleet consists of modern 737-8AF aircraft, with high-bypass turbofans mounted on pylons, which are quieter, cleaner, and much more fuel-efficient.

    On an aside to this discussion: I've spent the last few weeks in Chile, and I haven't seen any chemtrails here. Not one, at all.

    Why is that? Because I haven't seen any contrails.

    Why are there no contrails in a country that is 5000km long, and depends heavily on air travel to get from one part of the country to another? Because there are no clouds. The skies here are brilliantly blue and clear (at least for the most part, in those parts of the country I've been in), so the atmospheric conditions don't lend themselves to the formation of clouds - or contrails.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    Nope, don't trust it, but I do trust it to hijack, and spin a narrative the way governments dictate when in damage-control mode.

    I wish it were just dissinfo and there were no such thing as chemtrails......

    It's very hard for a government to control the media. The chinese do it by only having a few state-owned broadcasters and they have heavy censorship. The russian state buys up a controlling interest in every formerly independent media organisation and kills people who report on stuff they don't like. Despite that, the truth gets out.

    The point I'm getting at, is that in countries like ours (white english-speaking) we do in fact have quite a free press. I can guarantee you that the Telegraph's expences scandal was not sanctioned by the government for example. Media is a business and business only cares about money. They make money by selling advertising space and by subscriptions (includes people paying for a paper). They are not all given their news from above. If I'm not mistaken, Rupert Murdoch has actually switched allegiance in England and is actually anti-government. Yes, yes, I know he's just backing the right horse but it does demonstrate that the news is not controlled by the government. Sorry to take the thread kinda off-topic but this is one of my pet-peeves regarding CT discussions. Actually we should probably have a thread on the relationship between governments and the media if there hasn't been one already.


  • #638
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    Nope, don't trust it, but I do trust it to hijack, and spin a narrative the way governments dictate when in damage-control mode.

    So that news report you posted, is that evidence of barium in chemtrails, or is it damage control. And how did you figure out which it is, see as its a double guess.


  • #639
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Exactly. It's not that I think drugging or poisoning the population doesn't happen. It's just that if it does, then it will be in a cost-effective and inconspicuous way. Noone is going to paint the sky with evidence and piggyback on ads for specsavers.

    This is the thing, and I'm glad you keep bringing it up every now and again.

    If we can all just at least agree that chemtrail are not contrails, and that as you say, although governments (elements of) don't seem to have a problem drugging or poisoning populations, there are perhaps more efficient and low-profile methods, we might get a better perspective on what exactly the first target is here.

    I wouldn't discount the poisoning aspect outright though, I still stand on the opinion that it is a mulit-pronged operation, and they would take full advantage of any opportunity that arises...


  • #640
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Engines.

    A few years ago, Ryanair flew second-hand 737-100 (or maybe -200?) airplanes. These had low-bypass turbofan engines mounted directly to the wings, and were noisy and dirty as hell.

    Now the entire Ryanair fleet consists of modern 737-8AF aircraft, with high-bypass turbofans mounted on pylons, which are quieter, cleaner, and much more fuel-efficient.

    On an aside to this discussion: I've spent the last few weeks in Chile, and I haven't seen any chemtrails here. Not one, at all.

    Why is that? Because I haven't seen any contrails.

    Why are there no contrails in a country that is 5000km long, and depends heavily on air travel to get from one part of the country to another? Because there are no clouds. The skies here are brilliantly blue and clear (at least for the most part, in those parts of the country I've been in), so the atmospheric conditions don't lend themselves to the formation of clouds - or contrails.

    Not sure about that, about the atmospheric conditions don't lend themselves to the formation of clouds - never been to Chile but I know there's lakes there, and rivers, and glacial mountains.. and oh god, brilliantly clear blue skies you say?

    But you do realise that brilliantly blue skies are a sign of pollution? Only messing. I'd read years ago that South America, China, South East Asia and Africa were not not reporting chemtrails, which led some CTeres to speculate that perhaps chemtrails were some kind of airborne vaccination program. In other words, wipe out sections of the worlds most populated areas with some weaponised virus, take their resources and keep us 'whities' safe...

    But if that was the plan, they had enough time by now, you'd think... how much is a one-way ticket to Santiago?


  • #641
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    Not sure about that, about the atmospheric conditions don't lend themselves to the formation of clouds - never been to Chile but I know there's lakes there, and rivers, and glacial mountains..
    At this time of year, the rivers and lakes are pretty much exclusively fed by melt-water from the Andean snows. It just doesn't rain in much of the country in summer, because there just aren't any clouds.
    ...how much is a one-way ticket to Santiago?
    That's a sort of a touchy subject right now. The short answer is, if you're forced by circumstances to buy a business-class ticket, it costs a hell of a lot. Don't ask me how I know... :(


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    oh man, I knew that was too good to be true! Google chemtrails chile, see what I mean...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYVFiCNnWtI

    And they've coulds there too...


  • #643
    IrelandSpirit
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    At this time of year, the rivers and lakes are pretty much exclusively fed by melt-water from the Andean snows. It just doesn't rain in much of the country in summer, because there just aren't any clouds. That's a sort of a touchy subject right now. The short answer is, if you're forced by circumstances to buy a business-class ticket, it costs a hell of a lot. Don't ask me how I know... :(


    Maybe it's because it was summer, no chemtrails, but I'm not altogether convinced that is the case. We get them here in the summer too (i know that's not sayin much) and in Europe and all over the planet as far as I can tell, and with varied atmospheric conditions...

    (Thanks for the tip, I've friends there I've been promising to visit. Not bc then)


  • #644
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    oh man, I knew that was too good to be true! Google chemtrails chile, see what I mean...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYVFiCNnWtI

    And they've coulds there too...
    You'll notice that that video is from Puerto Montt, which is waay down south. Cooler climate, clouds - and contrails. Which goes to further emphasise the point that weather conditions which favour the formation of clouds also favour the formation of contrails.
    IrelandSpirit wrote: »
    Maybe it's because it was summer, no chemtrails, but I'm not altogether convinced that is the case. We get them here in the summer too (i know that's not sayin much) and in Europe and all over the planet as far as I can tell, and with varied atmospheric conditions...
    ...and always in atmospheric conditions that favour the formation of thin, high-level clouds. Doesn't that tell you anything?
    (Thanks for the tip, I've friends there I've been promising to visit. Not bc then)
    Oh believe me, if there's any way you can afford a business class ticket, or blag an upgrade, go for it. It's the only way to fly a 13-hour overnight flight - being able to lie fully horizontal is worth whatever you can afford to pay for it. I got stuck in Heathrow and was faced with the choice of either paying four grand for two one-way tickets, or skipping the whole trip.


  • #645
    Black Uhlan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭Black Uhlan


    I know feck all about chem(con)trails but apparently there were multiple reports of planes dispersing crap onto the people from afar in the days leading up to the outbreak of the plague in Ukraine
    http://fto.co.za/news/airplanes-sprayed-mysterious-substance-ukraine-days-pneumonic-plague-outbreak-2009110615732


  • #646
    SkyWatcher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭SkyWatcher


    Black Uhlan wrote: »
    I know feck all about chem(con)trails but apparently there were multiple reports of planes dispersing crap onto the people from afar in the days leading up to the outbreak of the plague in Ukraine
    http://fto.co.za/news/airplanes-sprayed-mysterious-substance-ukraine-days-pneumonic-plague-outbreak-2009110615732

    Thats very interseting even though we both know some smart ass will come along now and try prove you wrong even though you already admitted to knowing nothing about it lol...i hate those ppl...Look if you wanna get a whole different outlook on life at the moment just keep SkyWatchin pal...its working for me, ive been skywatching for a few months and ive seen so much, im gonna buy a good hd digi camcorder soon and post my vids........PEACE!!!!!!!!!


  • #647
    wingsof daun
    Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭wingsof daun


    IrelandSpirit wrote: »

    But you do realise that brilliantly blue skies are a sign of pollution? Only messing. I'd read years ago that South America, China, South East Asia and Africa were not not reporting chemtrails, which led some CTeres to speculate that perhaps chemtrails were some kind of airborne vaccination program. In other words, wipe out sections of the worlds most populated areas with some weaponised virus, take their resources and keep us 'whities' safe...

    Yes. They have to keep some of us alive to do their dirty work, as usual, it goes back as far as when we built the pyramids for them. :mad:


  • #648
    thecommander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭thecommander


    wingsof daun wrote: »
    Yes. They have to keep some of us alive to do their dirty work, as usual, it goes back as far as when we built the pyramids for them. :mad:

    News just in...
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/6962860/Pyramids-not-built-by-slaves.html


  • #649
    wingsof daun
    Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭wingsof daun


    thecommander wrote: »
    News just in...
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/6962860/Pyramids-not-built-by-slaves.html

    That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, it is a useless piece of tribe. I never said they were slaves that built them, it doesn't matter, they were still built for the elites.


Advertisement