Okay so Chemtrails...

meglome

The chemtrails topic keeps coming up in different threads. Now I'm quite happy to admit I don't believe in the existence of chemtrails, it just doesn't make any sense to me. But I'm looking for those who know about the topic to explain to me why I should believe in it. So these are my reasons for not believing...

• There would be better and cheaper ways to poison a population.
• No one has explained satisfactorily why 'they' would want to poison us.
• No one has shown these planes are anything other than normal passenger flights.
• No one has got a meteorologist i.e. someone with real expertise in cloud formations to say there is something not right.

meglome

akkadian wrote:

weather modification (admitted by UK and US governments)
and possibly to acclimatise people for scaling up to an increased volume of spraying:

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...hemtrails&aq=f

So weather modification to what end?

And spraying to make people used to more spraying?

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

So weather modification to what end?

It's a bit more complicated than that , more like weather warfare .

ilivetolearn

Quotations citated on Wikipedia that dismiss the theory:

United States Air force:

"(chemtrails) has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".

British Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

"(chemtrails) are not scientifically recognised phenomena"

The Canadian Government House Leader:

"The term 'chemtrails' is a popularized expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence."

ilivetolearn

The author at the below link claims to have:

discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of 'Geoengineering.'

Alleged Geoengineering Proof

GhostInTheRuins

The basic idea of chemtrail spraying is flawed in my opinion. "They", who are spraying the chemtrails, presumably live below cloud level, so they are in effect poisoning themselves are they not?

ilivetolearn

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

The basic idea of chemtrail spraying is flawed in my opinion. "They", who are spraying the chemtrails, presumably live below cloud level, so they are in effect poisoning themselves are they not?

I've encountered the same problem with harmful additives to food substances and water or biological pandemics. Surely "they" are not exempt from such effects before becoming part of "them".

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

It's a bit more complicated than that , more like weather warfare .

So what planes are they using to spray these chemicals? And where has weather modification ever been shown to work?

ilivetolearn

meglome wrote: »

And where has weather modification ever been shown to work?

The link I posted earlier might be of assistance though I don't know how authentic it is.

This massive research study is entitled: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The results were presented in 1992 and published in book form in 2000 by the National Academy Press. This 994 page study is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigation's (corrective measures). Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments, acquisition of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds

Mahatma coat

Well, Weather modification has been proven to work, Cloud seeding would be the most obvious example, this works and there is scientific evidence and explanations of the phenomonen involved.

as for the criss cross paterns being laid out by low flying Planes, has anyone considered that it might be Google earth Mapping. ya know when a companys motto is 'Dont be Evil' they're hidin secret evil projects :eek:

Mahatma coat

OK So do you know what this 'Hard Science' is???

or can you at least point us in a direction to find it.

ilivetolearn

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK So do you know what this 'Hard Science' is???

or can you at least point us in a direction to find it.

I've already provided you with a link to the alleged evidence in an earlier post in this thread. There a various papers of special interest referenced at the end of the document. Again I'm not vouching for their validity but it may be a good starting point for you, meglome and any one else interested in investigating the likelihood of the theory.

Mahatma coat

OK So this is what the overall plan is.

some of these bits make sense some have obvious oter explanations and some do verge on the ludicrous.

I am willing to consider all the options but First I'm gonna try and rule out some of these items as having a current explanation.

whatevers left then is the stuff that can only be explained as the Chemtrail conspiracy.

However I think someone is trying with this to link it all into an overarching 'Climate Change' conspiracy

ilivetolearn

Whilst on the topic of geoengineering the following weaponization tidbit (Wikipedia) may be of further interest:

Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy.[59] They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war[60] (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.[61]
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,[62] it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.
Despite the capacity of the military-industrial complex to investigate and deploy geoengineering, their involvement has proved controversial.[63] Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development.."[64]

Source

Mahatma coat

Right lets start with something I know a fair bit about

Diesel Engines

'Boats burn Sulphur'

yes this is true, boats use a much higher sulphur content in their fules than road vehicles, however this is essential for the running of the engine, sulphur lubricates and keeps the Rubber rings intact, without sulphur the seals would crack, now this isnt as big a problem on a 2.0L Diesel car engine were the seals are the diameter of a 10c coin, but on a boat engine the seals can be the size of coffee tables, hence the decision not to replace marind diesel with low sulphur diesel when road vehicles succumbed to the legislation.

Space Based Mirror arrays : WTF, I mean seriously, WTF. where does it relate to chemtrails?

Sequestering Co2 as a Slurry in Ocean Trenches : As above

'Ships add Iron Oxide' : They're made of steel and sitting in Salt water, Steel RUSTS.

Reforestation: cant see anything wrong with that meself, we do our bit on that front

Greening of Deserts : same as above

Algae Lakes : bloody good Idea, the other thing we can Do with algae lakes is turn the Biomass into BioDiesel to run our cars and boats

Dust and soot in High Altitude : there was some nutty theory postulated about filling the sky with sulphur, I'll find a link --- http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html ---

Aluminimum and Barium sprayed by planes : well thats the chemtrail bit, so we're back to square one

ETA

Oh ANd wasnt that aluminumium one just some airforce dickin about with radar jammin, thats interestin in its own right too tho, like the space mirrrors or the algae farmin, mcfilletoalgae anyone?
but of no relation to the Chemtrail conspiracy

the Barium tho, thats the one thAt pops up in a few of these reports from the states, each time theres a 'plausible' exdplanation but seems very coincidental :eek:

Mahatma coat

Oh and the word 'albedo' deserves amention in a post of its own.

:D:D

maybe we should starta thread for it

5starpool

If Weather modification works then why is California and surrounding states suffering it's worst drought in a long time? Surely they could make it rain there if they wished, or is this all part of the conspiracy too?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'Boats burn Sulphur'

yes this is true, <snip>

Space Based Mirror arrays : WTF, I mean seriously, WTF. where does it relate to chemtrails?

Sequestering Co2 as a Slurry in Ocean Trenches : As above

Nothing...but (according to the article linked to) they could/would/do all form part of a concerted strategy to combat global warming by artificially increasing the effect(s) of global dimming.

the Barium tho, thats the one thAt pops up in a few of these reports from the states, each time theres a 'plausible' exdplanation but seems very coincidental

IIRC, the debate about barium was more about the validity of claims that it had been found, and whether or not it could be linked to aircraft exhaust / chemtrails at all.

Mahatma coat

yesh, heres a vijeo abuot Chemtrails containin barium

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

dunno, Why suddenly is it bein linked to an overall 'climate Change' package, if it was to combat climate change woldnt they have just said that from the start, the more I see protestations about this the more my suspicions are piqued, and this was one of the few CT's I ws wilin to dismiss out of hand, but a bit of diggin and I'm undecded, theres something goin on, its not wht a lot of the people pushin the agenda tink it is, but theres something

Undergod

Why would weather control be a bad thing?

ilivetolearn

Undergod wrote: »

Why would weather control be a bad thing?

I submitted this snippet from Wikipedia only a few posts ago:

Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy.[59] They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war[60] (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.[61]
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,[62] it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.
Despite the capacity of the military-industrial complex to investigate and deploy geoengineering, their involvement has proved controversial.[63] Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development.."[64]

Source

I'm not attempting to validate the theory in question but it should answer your question.

Undergod

I'm not attempting to validate the theory in question but it should answer your question.

No, to be honest. The same can be said of any technology, pretty much everything can have a harmful or military application.

6th

Undergod wrote: »

No, to be honest.

What exactly are you saying "no" to?

Undergod

Edited for clarity.

SkyWatcher

The thing that gets me every time is the fact that all these ppl have to do is look up every day.

It has been proven that "chemtrails" exist. The US Secretary of Defense admitted to weather manipulation. I watched a Discovery Channel Doc the other day on HAARP, they left a hell of a lot of facts out of it but they too said it is possible to manipulate weather.

IT IS POSSIBLE!!!!!

Any more idiots wanna humour me and the other lads who are seeing this for real??????

Go ahead its funny to listen to you ppl...

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK UP!!!!!

humanji

When you can prove the trails are chemtrails then people will accept it. Until then you should hardly be surprised people don't believe you.

And don't call anyone on this forum an idiot ever again!

RGDATA!

SkyWatcher wrote: »

The thing that gets me every time is the fact that all these ppl have to do is look up every day.


Any more idiots wanna humour me and the other lads who are seeing this for real??????

Go ahead its funny to listen to you ppl...

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK UP!!!!!

The problem with that is that what some people call "chem trails", most would consider "contrails". Looking up doesn't show you that there's anything harmful in them or that they're anything other than a natural phenomenon. That's the problem with just looking up and hoping to find the truth. Sorry if that sounds idiotic to you.

RGDATA!

To people who believe in Chem trails - have any of you ever tried reporting them to the authorities or complaining to the Irish Aviation Authority or the airlines? I'm sure if there were enough people reporting it it would have to be looked into. Just a suggestion and curious to hear the experiences of anyone who has reported them

seamus

You can show the ridiculousness of chemtrails through maths, simply. Dublin, for example is 921 square kilometres.

If an aircraft is flying over Dublin at 10,000m (30,000 feet), then there is 9.21 quadrillion litres of air between Dublin and the aircraft. That's around 9 million billion litres of air.

In order to get a decent coverage and drop a chemical so that there is 1 part chemical per million parts air, the aircraft would have to be carrying 9.2 billion litres of that chemical. And that's just to cover Dublin.

Of course, that would be ridiculous - they're spreading the chemicals out over different aircraft, right?

Well, the cargo hold of a 737-800 will hold about 45,000 litres. So ignoring the fact that passengers have luggage, you would need more than 204,000 aircraft to fly over Dublin, in order to put this chemical into the air - and only in Dublin remember - at a concentration of one part per million.

Actually, they're not using passenger planes, they're sending up their own planes, right? A 737-800, devoid of passengers will carry about 300,000 litres. So in order to cover Dublin - and only Dublin - they would need to fly 30,600 planes over Dublin city, loaded up with this chemical. And since wind currents are constantly moving, this would need to be an ongoing thing, flying 30,600 aircraft over Dublin, say every 4 months, so 90,000 flights per year.

Dublin airport handles about 45,000 passenger flights per year. Forget commercial traffic. I'm pretty sure that if the air traffic over Dublin tripled it would be noticed by someone somewhere.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that the task of spraying even a city's population, never mind a country's one with some form of doping chemical or whatever, is such a mind-bogglingly enormous and difficult task that it would require more effort and money than anyone could hide away.

There aren't enough aircraft or pilots on the planet to accomplish this feat within any of our lifetimes.

robtri

seamus wrote: »

You can show the ridiculousness of chemtrails through maths, simply. Dublin, for example is 921 square kilometres.

If an aircraft is flying over Dublin at 10,000m (30,000 feet), then there is 9.21 quadrillion litres of air between Dublin and the aircraft. That's around 9 million billion litres of air.

In order to get a decent coverage and drop a chemical so that there is 1 part chemical per million parts air, the aircraft would have to be carrying 9.2 billion litres of that chemical. And that's just to cover Dublin.

Of course, that would be ridiculous - they're spreading the chemicals out over different aircraft, right?

Well, the cargo hold of a 737-800 will hold about 45,000 litres. So ignoring the fact that passengers have luggage, you would need more than 204,000 aircraft to fly over Dublin, in order to put this chemical into the air - and only in Dublin remember - at a concentration of one part per million.

Actually, they're not using passenger planes, they're sending up their own planes, right? A 737-800, devoid of passengers will carry about 300,000 litres. So in order to cover Dublin - and only Dublin - they would need to fly 30,600 planes over Dublin city, loaded up with this chemical. And since wind currents are constantly moving, this would need to be an ongoing thing, flying 30,600 aircraft over Dublin, say every 4 months, so 90,000 flights per year.

Dublin airport handles about 45,000 passenger flights per year. Forget commercial traffic. I'm pretty sure that if the air traffic over Dublin tripled it would be noticed by someone somewhere.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that the task of spraying even a city's population, never mind a country's one with some form of doping chemical or whatever, is such a mind-bogglingly enormous and difficult task that it would require more effort and money than anyone could hide away.

There aren't enough aircraft or pilots on the planet to accomplish this feat within any of our lifetimes.

while i disagree with Chemtrails being real....

surely your maths is slighty wrong...

if the chemical is made to be heavier than airit will fall through the atmosphere and therefore 1 part per million is not required to altitudes of 10000 feet...

uprising2

I was on a flight on tuesday and I took a quick snap of the chemtrails over england, I wasn't sitting at the window so I couldn't get a decent shot but everything above the wing are chemtrails, they went on in all directions as far as the eye could see.

Mahatma coat

Everything??? You sure about that? a lot of it looks like regular cloud cover

espinolman

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Everything??? You sure about that? a lot of it looks like regular cloud cover

If they have been spraying the skies for decades now then who knows what regular cloud cover looks like , there is global dimming that has been occuring so slowly that noboby has noticed , if it happened overnight , why everyone would notice , but if it happened over a period of decades , who would notice !

Unless you are old enough to remember before there were planes , how would you know if the cloud cover in our skies is normal .

Tetsudo

@uprising2

Thats an excellent photo.

Also, there was a case a few years back where it was found out in america that some commercial airliners actually had the equipment built into and under them and were releasing the stuff on their usual day to day buisness. I think it was some engineer who was working on a plane and saw a load of containers built into the plane that should not have been there. Maybe they are activated by remote so as not to ever actually involve the plilots, who knows.

PirateShampoo

Tetsudo wrote: »

@uprising2

Thats an excellent photo.

Also, there was a case a few years back where it was found out in america that some commercial airliners actually had the equipment built into and under them and were releasing the stuff on their usual day to day buisness. I think it was some engineer who was working on a plane and saw a load of containers built into the plane that should not have been there. Maybe they are activated by remote so as not to ever actually involve the plilots, who knows.

But of course you have no evidence of anything that you are saying or nothing to back up your claims.

Maybe you could post a you tube video of a guy claiming to be this enginner and will confirm everything uve posted.

uprising2

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Everything??? You sure about that? a lot of it looks like regular cloud cover

Mahatma, you can't really see it properly from these pics, but look closely, it was line upon line of chemtrails, in the first pic, what looks like cloud in the top of the pic is a trail that was about 40ft above me and miles and miles long, I only got these pics when the fella sitting at the window went to the toilet, but believe me I had passed slightly under them heading east about 15 mins before taking the pics, then the plane turned south and joined the trail, again everything above the wing are trails that have joined into one big mass, every now and again I could see trails joining it and trails leaving it

PirateShampoo

espinolman wrote: »

If they have been spraying the skies for decades now then who knows what regular cloud cover looks like , there is global dimming that has been occuring so slowly that noboby has noticed , if it happened overnight , why everyone would notice , but if it happened over a period of decades , who would notice !

Unless you are old enough to remember before there were planes , how would you know if the cloud cover in our skies is normal .

Maybe the sky used to be purple, and emissions from cars have turned it blue.

Unless you are old enough to remember before there were cars , how would you know if the sky was always blue?

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Maybe the sky used to be purple, and emissions from cars have turned it blue.

Unless you are old enough to remember before there were cars , how would you know if the sky was blue?

You make such great informed comments, every post you post fills the thread with wisdom and awe,
throw you expert eye over this and tell me what all the streaks side by side are.

PirateShampoo

Clouds.

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Clouds.

Thanks!:rolleyes:,

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Thanks!:rolleyes:,

Classy as ever :rolleyes:

Anyway ignoring ur childish out bursts.

Cirrus clouds

uprising2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
Cirrus clouds are formed when water vapor freezes into ice crystals at altitudes above 8000 meters (26,000 ft).[3] Due to the sparse moisture at a high altitude, they tend to be very thin.[1] At this altitude, aircraft leave condensation trails that can turn into cirrus clouds.


So what you meant shampoo was that they were caused by aircraft just like I said.

PirateShampoo

So how many aircraft where used to form that cloud in that picture?

uprising2

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So how many aircraft where used to form that cloud in that picture?

How do I know?, and even if I knew the amount what would that prove?, it's a pointless question leading nowhere, here's a timelapse video taken in the same general area as the photo I took.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL50vs899uw

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

aircraft leave condensation trails that can turn into cirrus clouds.

So what you meant shampoo was that they were caused by aircraft just like I said.

You said they were clouds formed by condensation trails (i.e. contrails)

You're on the side of those arguing that they're contrails and not chemtrails, then?


Also...being picky, I'd note that the quote doesn't say cirrus clouds must be formed from condensation trails....rather that its one way they can form.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

You said they were clouds formed by condensation trails (i.e. contrails)

You're on the side of those arguing that they're contrails and not chemtrails, then?


Also...being picky, I'd note that the quote doesn't say cirrus clouds must be formed from condensation trails....rather that its one way they can form.

No I quoted what the wiki article said.

No I'm on the side that says their chemtrails, but since wiki didn't say they may form from chemtrails, I had to make do with contrails for the sake of argument.

Yea it's one way they can form, but I was talking about the trails I saw and photographed, it was trail upon trail which formed one mass, it's clear from the big picture exactly what they are and how they got there, and if their not clear enough for some, it doesn't really make any difference to what I saw.

DeBunny

I was talking to a group of Australians a while ago who were obsessed with ''kim-triles''.
They said said they rarely get vapourtrails/contrails/chemtrails in Australia. So either the lack of moisture in the Australian skies prevents contrails from forming, or, are the ozies exempt from the global poisoning?

Condensation is caused by a difference in temperature be two different areas. The explanation for contrails is much the same as the explanation for condensation forming on the window of a warm house on a cold day.

Also, if you compare ''chemtrails'' with crop dusting you'll see that for chemicals being dropped from the sky to have any effect the airplane needs to be incredibly close to the ground.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

No I quoted what the wiki article said.

You used it as a means to argue that your claim that the clouds were caused by aircraft was correct.

If you agree with what it says, then contrails cause cirrus-cloud formation.
If you don't agree with what it says, then it doesn't support your claim.

No I'm on the side that says their chemtrails, but since wiki didn't say they may form from chemtrails, I had to make do with contrails for the sake of argument.

Put differently, you had to make do with the conventional scientific explanation for why contrails can persist...despite rejecting this explanation yourself.

it's clear from the big picture exactly what they are

Its clear to me that they're clouds. Its clear to you that they're something else. "Clear", therefore, seems somewhat "cloudy"

bonkey

DeBunny wrote: »

Also, if you compare ''chemtrails'' with crop dusting you'll see that for chemicals being dropped from the sky to have any effect the airplane needs to be incredibly close to the ground.

Its not so much that they need to be so close to the ground to have an effect, its that they need to be so close to the ground to target the effect in any meaningful way.

beyosoco

Is anyone on the forum aware of the prime reason for chemtrails? We have been photographing chemtrails since they started in Mayo on 11th May 09. By September 09 we had realised that they were mainly chemtrailing to block the sun. Ever since then we have been photographing the sun each day, especially when there is heavy chemtrail activity. We photographed a second sun in the sky on 29th August and realised that we had many more such images back through the summer. We are photographing a second sun in our sky this week.

seamus

robtri wrote: »

while i disagree with Chemtrails being real....

surely your maths is slighty wrong...

if the chemical is made to be heavier than airit will fall through the atmosphere and therefore 1 part per million is not required to altitudes of 10000 feet...

I'm not going to say you're wrong and I'm right, or vice-versa, I was just giving sample calculations. As bonkey says...:

Its not so much that they need to be so close to the ground to have an effect, its that they need to be so close to the ground to target the effect in any meaningful way.

If the particles were excessively heavy, we would all be dusted from above by the chemicals and it would be very obvious when we saw them coming. So they need to be sufficiently light that they will drop slowly and spread quite uniformly - think of dropping a handful of fine sand into clear water.

When you take air currents into account, you would need to drop a fairly large quantity of chemicals in order to ensure that a sufficient amount spread out over the target area.

No, my maths isn't 100% correct - it's an illustration only. In reality I believe that when you take weather effects into account, you would require far more chemicals again.