CHEMTRAILS

SLUMLAMB

flights6.JPG

flights7.JPG

flights8.JPG

flights9.JPG

flights10.JPG

chebonaparte

hey folks, ive been very busy, but nice to see healthy level of debate.

its obvious some people are more skilled debaters and used to arguing their points across. alas good debaters dont necessarily always speak the truth.

i think every body should take note of what the moderator said.

i think neutrals and alike will have learned or gained something from this thread.

personally i dont think the pros or cons of both sides of the argument have been conclusively proven one way or the other there's many holes and discrepancies in both's techniques and approaches to the argument

and regardless if you call them contrails or chemtrails fact is even met eireann on rte tv has admitted the clouds are man made and from the aircraft flying over head.

question is should that be allowed and tolerated?

the blocking of the natural sun from our environment crops animals and are ourselves not least, the
military, corporate or otherwise playing god with weather, geo engineering or sunlight , where is their evidence to prove they know what they are doing and long term studies about the repercussions of any interference in the natural climate on an evolutionary time-scale?
would any democratic population be in favour of such dangerous practices if put to vote?

whatever yee believe tonight Gorey Wexford has heavy blanket spread artificial contrail /chemtrail made clouds
and the planes etcha skethcin the skies has intensified daily

namloc1980

chebonaparte wrote: »

hey folks, ive been very busy, but nice to see healthy level of debate.

its obvious some people are more skilled debaters and used to arguing their points across. alas good debaters dont necessarily always speak the truth.

i think every body should take note of what the moderator said.

i think neutrals and alike will have learned or gained something from this thread.

personally i dont think the pros or cons of both sides of the argument have been conclusively proven one way or the other there's many holes and discrepancies in both's techniques and approaches to the argument

and regardless if you call them contrails or chemtrails fact is even met eireann on rte tv has admitted the clouds are man made and from the aircraft flying over head.

question is should that be allowed and tolerated?

the blocking of the natural sun from our environment crops animals and are ourselves not least, the
military, corporate or otherwise playing god with weather, geo engineering or sunlight , where is their evidence to prove they know what they are doing and long term studies about the repercussions of any interference in the natural climate on an evolutionary time-scale?
would any democratic population be in favour of such dangerous practices if put to vote?

whatever yee believe tonight Gorey Wexford has heavy blanket spread artificial contrail /chemtrail made clouds
and the planes etcha skethcin the skies has intensified daily

I don't think you will find anyone who denies that contrails can become clouds. However as long as aircraft engines burn fossil fuels this will continue to be the case. Aircraft fuel is a hydrocarbon i.e. made of molecules of Hydrogen and Carbon. When it burns in Oxygen the primary result is water, energy and Carbon Dioxide. For example this is the equation for the burning of Propane:

C3H8 + 5O2 → 3CO2 + 4H2O + energy

Simply, every molecule of propane that burns produces 4 molecules of water. Here is the equation for something more complex akin to aviation fuel (kerosene):

2C12H26 + 37O2 → 24CO2 + 26H2O + energy

For every two molecules of fuel burned it produces 26 molecules of water. The implication being, that burning fuel produces alot of water and Carbon Dioxide. In fact, 1 litre of fuel will produce more than 1 litre of water after it burns in Oxygen. The atomic weight of aviation fuel is 170. The atomic weight of water is 18. So 2 molecules of aviation fuel = 340. 26 molecules of water weigh 468. Therefore every litre of aviation fuel will produce 1.38 litres of water. Couple this with the pre-existing moisture in the air that a jet engine sucks in while it flies and that's an awful out of water that gets spat out from the engine.

My point is that contrails are the result of a pretty simple chemical reaction that produces alot of one chemical (water) from the burning of another (fuel). Hopefully I have shown how burning fuel produces a seemingly inordinate amount of exhaust (water vapour) which perhaps people may not believe is possible from an aircraft.

Contrails will be with us for a very long time unless we either:
1. Stop flying aircraft, which is not now possible, or,
2. Power our aircraft with something other than fossil fuel.

SLUMLAMB

chebonaparte wrote: »

hey folks, ive been very busy, but nice to see healthy level of debate.

its obvious some people are more skilled debaters and used to arguing their points across. alas good debaters dont necessarily always speak the truth.

i think every body should take note of what the moderator said.

i think neutrals and alike will have learned or gained something from this thread.

personally i dont think the pros or cons of both sides of the argument have been conclusively proven one way or the other there's many holes and discrepancies in both's techniques and approaches to the argument

and regardless if you call them contrails or chemtrails fact is even met eireann on rte tv has admitted the clouds are man made and from the aircraft flying over head.

question is should that be allowed and tolerated?

the blocking of the natural sun from our environment crops animals and are ourselves not least, the
military, corporate or otherwise playing god with weather, geo engineering or sunlight , where is their evidence to prove they know what they are doing and long term studies about the repercussions of any interference in the natural climate on an evolutionary time-scale?
would any democratic population be in favour of such dangerous practices if put to vote?

whatever yee believe tonight Gorey Wexford has heavy blanket spread artificial contrail /chemtrail made clouds
and the planes etcha skethcin the skies has intensified daily

Firstly I think CHEBONAPARTE made a good point neither side have proven one way or the other and I dont think either side will prove or disprove the existance of toxic "chemtrails" without doing as a few people have suggested, Take samples using weather balloons or whatever. Again he is right it doesnt really matter (until we know for sure) if there is diliberate spraying as opossed to just contrails. The point is the contrails are causing a problem anyway and all this talk of a secret plan only allows certain people to write it all off as crazy talk. This will not help matters at all instead hampers it, by people wasting their time searching for information that is ignored by the "skeptics" as Ive seen a good few times on this topic, The "skeptics" seem to disappear for a couple of posts then re-appear when another member has made a point that is easier to deny or argue with. Some members against "chemtrails" offer solutions such as "check the flight tracker sites they will show you that air traffic is very heavy so lots of contrails is very normal" yet I know of one member who did this and the response he got was "not all the flights are on there", What a waste of time . I posted a few snips of flight routes from the day I noticed all the trails and not one flight crossed the place where most of the trails were, This too was completly ignored.
Surely one plane would have shown up on the tracker especially as there was at least 20 trails in all different directions in the sky.
As so many of the "skeptics" Have pointed out we need to get proof before anyone will bat an eyelid. We will never achieve this by bickering back and forth with people who admit they are biased in their argument.
This also stops us from sharing the Info with people who actually want it.

SLUMLAMB

namloc1980 wrote: »

I don't think you will find anyone who denies that contrails can become clouds. However as long as aircraft engines burn fossil fuels this will continue to be the case. Aircraft fuel is a hydrocarbon i.e. made of molecules of Hydrogen and Carbon. When it burns in Oxygen the primary result is water, energy and Carbon Dioxide. For example this is the equation for the burning of Propane:

C3H8 + 5O2 → 3CO2 + 4H2O + energy

Simply, every molecule of propane that burns produces 4 molecules of water. Here is the equation for something more complex akin to aviation fuel (kerosene):

2C12H26 + 37O2 → 24CO2 + 26H2O + energy

For every two molecules of fuel burned it produces 26 molecules of water. The implication being, that burning fuel produces alot of water and Carbon Dioxide. In fact, 1 litre of fuel will produce more than 1 litre of water after it burns in Oxygen. The atomic weight of aviation fuel is 170. The atomic weight of water is 18. So 2 molecules of aviation fuel = 340. 26 molecules of water weigh 468. Therefore every litre of aviation fuel will produce 1.38 litres of water. Couple this with the pre-existing moisture in the air that a jet engine sucks in while it flies and that's an awful out of water that gets spat out from the engine.

My point is that contrails are the result of a pretty simple chemical reaction that produces alot of one chemical (water) from the burning of another (fuel). Hopefully I have shown how burning fuel produces a seemingly inordinate amount of exhaust (water vapour) which perhaps people may not believe is possible from an aircraft.

Contrails will be with us for a very long time unless we either:
1. Stop flying aircraft, which is not now possible, or,
2. Power our aircraft with something other than fossil fuel.

I just have a couple more issues to address
The suggestion that a jets exhaust produces a lot of one chemical (water) isnt entirely true
the jets also produce a lot of other harmful chemicals, such as noX and ozone(o3) which are extremly harmful to plants and animals and to ourselves.

Water vapour or H2o is one of the most abundant greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so we dont really need any more especially the levels jets produce. So dont think its yust harmless water
I wont go into detail on the rest Ill just list them and any one who wants can check them out themselves.
(HC), (CO), (VOC), (PAHs), (SO2) ,(HN03), (NO), (03), (N02)

More importantly (PM10),(PM25) particulates which are a major health risk linked to 200,000 deaths per year in Europe alone

And as with any fossil fuels more ghg's (CO2), (CH4), (N20),

This does not include emissions from auxilary power units just main engines

So maybe as "NAMLOC1980" suggested we should stop flying aircraft or find an alternative power source,
Or we could at least try to stop the huge amounts of aircraft flying over our little island as its not "chemtrails" doing the damage its contrails

Example-> contrails are toxic clouds which turns to toxic rain which falls on us and everything around us.

5uspect

You may as well never use your car again so.
Also we'll have to dismantle the public transport system and the power grid.

We live in a fossil fuel driven world. Unfortunately renewable sources don't come near the energy density of fossil fuels so we're stuck with them for now.

Gas turbines are probably the most efficient way to extract work from fossil fuel. Many modern power stations use them. Modern aircraft are significantly more efficient due to the points I made in my previous posts about the technology. Many airlines are changing (and are being forced to change) to more efficient aircraft to cut costs. Ryanair's move from crappy old 737-200s to NGs on the cheap after 9/11 is a good example.

alastair

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Some members against "chemtrails" offer solutions such as "check the flight tracker sites they will show you that air traffic is very heavy so lots of contrails is very normal" yet I know of one member who did this and the response he got was "not all the flights are on there", What a waste of time . I posted a few snips of flight routes from the day I noticed all the trails and not one flight crossed the place where most of the trails were, This too was completly ignored.
Surely one plane would have shown up on the tracker especially as there was at least 20 trails in all different directions in the sky.

Contrails are effectively clouds, and as subject to moving with the prevailing winds as any other cloud. Want to know the source of your contrails? - check the flight tracker for the day and the met office data for same day.

I'll assure you of two things - your flight trails didn't appear without flights, and they were contrails, not chemtrails.

SLUMLAMB

alastair wrote: »

Contrails are effectively clouds, and as subject to moving with the prevailing winds as any other cloud. Want to know the source of your contrails? - check the flight tracker for the day and the met office data for same day.

I'll assure you of two things - your flight trails didn't appear without flights, and they were contrails, not chemtrails.

If you bothered to look at previous posts you would see I did check the flight trackers and no sign of anything.
I never referred to them as "chemtrails" and I never do because I dont believe they are "chemtrails" and if you bothered to read the post properly you would know this also I know contrails are clouds this doesnt mean they are not toxic.

espinolman

If planes are messing with the climate , by creating artificial clouds then maybe they should not be used any more , so how about going back to airships , whuch can be powered by perpetual motion machines .
The chemtrail thing , that was all declassified early in 2010 , if anyone had bothered to check .

5uspect

Wut? Why not run jet engines on your supposed perpetual motion? All you need is a heat source to rapidly expand the gas in the turbine. (See the proposed nuclear jet engines for example)

I've said this before but I'll reiterate it. If you can build a perpetual motion machine you gain an infinite amount of energy. This means the end of the world as we know it. You could simply build teleporters that use enough energy to power a small star to get you to the Bahamas at zero cost since you have infinite energy. But why stop there. You, and everyone on the planet could simply just build yourself your own planet populated with billions on hot sexy lady clones. It doesn't matter how much energy any of this costs or how inefficient any of it is since you have an infinite pool of energy.

From a CT perspective there is absolutely no need to keep this hidden. There is infinity enough for everyone. We would become like gods.

Perpetual motion, and hence free energy, would have unfathomably gigantic consequences for the world. But you can have your little airships.

SLUMLAMB

5uspect wrote: »

Wut? Why not run jet engines on your supposed perpetual motion? All you need is a heat source to rapidly expand the gas in the turbine. (See the proposed nuclear jet engines for example)

I've said this before but I'll reiterate it. If you can build a perpetual motion machine you gain an infinite amount of energy. This means the end of the world as we know it. You could simply build teleporters that use enough energy to power a small star to get you to the Bahamas at zero cost since you have infinite energy. But why stop there. You, and everyone on the planet could simply just build yourself your own planet populated with billions on hot sexy lady clones. It doesn't matter how much energy any of this costs or how inefficient any of it is since you have an infinite pool of energy.

From a CT perspective there is absolutely no need to keep this hidden. There is infinity enough for everyone. We would become like gods.

Perpetual motion, and hence free energy, would have unfathomably gigantic consequences for the world. But you can have your little airships.

Man why make a joke out of this why not look for your own alternative to a power source if your so clued in on energy. If more people were thinking along the lines of espinolman then we might be better off, So you keep dreaming about billions of sexy lady clones (which would only be ideal in a male dominated world) just shows how much you care about finding a real solution. Also even if you had optimum energy doesnt mean you can build a teleporter, again I see this as another attempt to steer people away from the real issue . Have you anything to say about the toxins and pollutants in the exhausts from jets or are you on your way to the Bahamas which Im sorry to tell you isnt free from contrails and pollutants .

SLUMLAMB

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Have you anything to say about the toxins and pollutants in the exhausts from jets or are you on your way to the Bahamas which Im sorry to tell you isnt free from contrails and pollutants .

So now you've gone from just curious about the "toxins" to being sure they're there?

What exactly leads you to believe there is anything in contrails that could harm us at all?

5uspect

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Man why make a joke out of this why not look for your own alternative to a power source if your so clued in on energy. If more people were thinking along the lines of espinolman then we might be better off, So you keep dreaming about billions of sexy lady clones (which would only be ideal in a male dominated world) just shows how much you care about finding a real solution. Also even if you had optimum energy doesnt mean you can build a teleporter, again I see this as another attempt to steer people away from the real issue . Have you anything to say about the toxins and pollutants in the exhausts from jets or are you on your way to the Bahamas which Im sorry to tell you isnt free from contrails and pollutants .

I'm not joking at all. I'm quite serious. I care very much, I can assure you, so much so that I have a PhD in the area.

This is not optimum energy, far from it. This is infinite energy. Something the true believers seem to completely ignore and dare I say it have quite short-sighted opinions about it. It means much more than never having to pay your ESB bill again. As I've said it is world shattering.

Gas turbines approach optimum efficiency within the limits of thermodynamic restrains. The same restrains that prevent perpetual motion.
The biggest source of loss in a gas turbine are viscous and turbulent shear stress in the air flowing through them. That is why you need to use energy locked in fuel to overcome this, the nuclear engines use the heat of the reactor to do the same. The better you design the geometry of the various blades and ducting in the engine the less loss you encounter and the less fuel you need.

If you build a "crude" free energy machine that just barely exceeds unity, say 1.0000000000000001 then all you have to do is link up a lot of them and you have an infinite pool of energy.

The result would be that the only limit to the possibilities would simply be our own imaginations. Teleportation could very well be possible given enough energy to create a wormhole, and we have infinite energy. The point is that perpetual motion has consequences than the posters here seem to realise.

alastair

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

If you bothered to look at previous posts you would see I did check the flight trackers and no sign of anything.
I never referred to them as "chemtrails" and I never do because I dont believe they are "chemtrails" and if you bothered to read the post properly you would know this also I know contrails are clouds this doesnt mean they are not toxic.

And if you bother to read my post you'll find that you need to account for wind drift before you claim that there were no accountable flights recorded.

espinolman

5uspect wrote: »

I'm not joking at all. I'm quite serious. I care very much, I can assure you, so much so that I have a PhD in the area.

This is not optimum energy, far from it. This is infinite energy. Something the true believers seem to completely ignore and dare I say it have quite short-sighted opinions about it. It means much more than never having to pay your ESB bill again. As I've said it is world shattering.

Gas turbines approach optimum efficiency within the limits of thermodynamic restrains. The same restrains that prevent perpetual motion.
The biggest source of loss in a gas turbine are viscous and turbulent shear stress in the air flowing through them. That is why you need to use energy locked in fuel to overcome this, the nuclear engines use the heat of the reactor to do the same. The better you design the geometry of the various blades and ducting in the engine the less loss you encounter and the less fuel you need.

If you build a "crude" free energy machine that just barely exceeds unity, say 1.0000000000000001 then all you have to do is link up a lot of them and you have an infinite pool of energy.

The result would be that the only limit to the possibilities would simply be our own imaginations. Teleportation could very well be possible given enough energy to create a wormhole, and we have infinite energy. The point is that perpetual motion has consequences than the posters here seem to realise.

Perpetual motion is impossible i think , but the word perpetual has been used historicaly in relation to free energy devices , but its not perpetual motion in that there would be a power source and the same with anything called a free energy device .
Matter is composed of energy , e = mc squared , maybe machines have been invented that run on the energy contained in matter .
You have a conventional education , so you are unlikely to understand , because the conventional system is rigged so you won't understand .
5suspect you probably believe in protons , neutrons and electrons , so you are unlikely to ever understand free energy .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Perpetual motion is impossible i think , but the word perpetual has been used historicaly in relation to free energy devices , but its not perpetual motion in that there would be a power source and the same with anything called a free energy device .
Matter is composed of energy , e = mc squared , maybe machines have been invented that run on the energy contained in matter .
You have a conventional education , so you are unlikely to understand , because the conventional system is rigged so you won't understand .
5suspect you probably believe in protons , neutrons and electrons , so you are unlikely to ever understand free energy .

Espinolman, protons, neutrons and electrons are integral to e=mc^2.
Matter isn't composed of energy it can be converted into a certain amount of energy.

Maybe before you deride "conventional education" maybe you should try to get an understanding of the terms you are using.

5uspect

espinolman wrote: »

Perpetual motion is impossible i think , but the word perpetual has been used historicaly in relation to free energy devices , but its not perpetual motion in that there would be a power source and the same with anything called a free energy device .
Matter is composed of energy , e = mc squared , maybe machines have been invented that run on the energy contained in matter .
You have a conventional education , so you are unlikely to understand , because the conventional system is rigged so you won't understand .
5suspect you probably believe in protons , neutrons and electrons , so you are unlikely to ever understand free energy .

What are you on about?! I can't understand any of that first sentence. Perpetual motion machines require free energy to work. They have to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. They must get the energy they are not conserving from somewhere.

Lots of machines have been made that run on the energy contained in matter. Your car for example.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of the Scientific Literature, based on evidence based methodologies and peer review is wrong? Not only wrong but a vast conspiracy? That your bizarre cherry picking of a popular equation allows you to somehow dismiss vast amounts of science related to said equation? That you can claim that I cannot possibly understand since all of the work I have done throughout my education and research career makes me somehow ineligible to understand your nonsense?

What qualifies you to understand free energy beyond a few youtube videos and crackpot websites?

espinolman

5uspect wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of the Scientific Literature, based on evidence based methodologies and peer review is wrong?

Its conventional sciene theory that is wrong .

alastair

espinolman wrote: »

Its conventional sciene theory that is wrong .

And grammar, coherent sentence structuring and spelling no doubt.

Why refer to conventional science to propound your own theories then?

E=mc²

espinolman

Are the establishment putting subtle threats my way here ?

I think so .

They don't want free energy .

5uspect

espinolman wrote: »

Its conventional sciene theory that is wrong .

What a glib response.
Why is it wrong? Is it all wrong or just the bits you don't like?
As I've asked you, what qualifies you to make this statement?
Can you provide an experiment to demonstrate your claims?
Or it simply a matter that you really really wish it were the way you want it?

Are the establishment putting subtle threats my way here ?

I think so .

They don't want free energy .

No body is threatening you. We're simply engaging in debate, don't hide behind a perceived prejudice when you can't adequately answer the questions thrown at you. Your claims are extreme and you must expect to have to robustly defend them.

This, by the way, this is how Science works. This keeps it honest, open and sharp. If you feel threatened by the posts in this thread you should try working in research. Your ideas will be torn apart unapologetically on a regular basis.

Of course They want free energy and every attempt to demonstrate it is a test of the Laws of Thermodynamics. But no one has yet shown an exception, unless you can. Instead Scientists are focusing on more realistic energy goals like at JET. Don't confuse confidence in the Laws that have been used to equip you with technological toys you enjoy with some sort of cover up. Otherwise we would still be tossing apples in the air to prove Newton wrong.

espinolman

Conventional ***** are responsible for all the pollution in the world .

Penn

alastair wrote: »

And grammar, coherent sentence structuring and spelling no doubt.

Why refer to conventional science to propound your own theories then?

E=mc²

Please refrain from commenting on other people's grammer. If you feel that a post is too difficult to read, report it or ignore it.

SLUMLAMB

alastair wrote: »

And if you bother to read my post you'll find that you need to account for wind drift before you claim that there were no accountable flights recorded.

I watched the planes flying over and there was no wind other wise the trails would not have lingered in the sky all day as you already know

SLUMLAMB

King Mob wrote: »

So now you've gone from just curious about the "toxins" to being sure they're there?

What exactly leads you to believe there is anything in contrails that could harm us at all?

Ha, you make me laugh, I shouldnt justify such a question with a response but I feel sorry for you, I never said I was curious about the toxins I dont know where you are getting that.

You have been very quiet, As I guessed, Since I posted up the pics of the excessive trails and the info from the flight tracker that you requested (which clearly shows no flights any where near the area) and you decided to ignore it all , But like I said I expected this,
So I wont be going into detail with you on exactly how or where I obtained the info on the pollutants but I assure you it came from a reliable and credible source. If your so sure there is no pullutants or toxins why dont you go find something that will suggest such a thing and dont try give me that whole "onus is on me thing" because I clearly listed in my post the toxins and pollutants and said any one who wants to look them up can do so. Obviously you didnt bother so Im not goin to spell it out for you, believe what you want, I have better things to do than repeat my self for your benifit. All I have left to say to you is the toxins are there and they are very real


If any one who genuinely cant find anything about the pollutants in jet exhausts mail me and ill be glad to point you in the right direction

Finally I see you have found some one else to interrogate so Ill leave you to it ive nothing more to say anyway

SLUMLAMB

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Finally I see you have found some one else to interrogate so Ill leave you to it ive nothing more to say anyway

You're right, you're clearly not interested in actual discussion.

SLUMLAMB

King Mob wrote: »

You're right, you're clearly not interested in actual discussion.

I meant nothing more to say to you, reasons being you ask questions then ignore the factual answers do you still believe there are no toxins in jet exhausts or is energy your new field of expertise. Ive no problem discussing something with some one who can accept or even acknowledge when they are wrong. You asked for answers you got them and you decided to ignore it all so I now know you want only to argue with someone. The exhausts given off from the burning of any fossil fuels are toxic, Yet you ask me how can I be so sure jet exhausts are toxic. Tell me if im wrong about all this, were you genuinely asking how do I know the toxins exist or were you suggesting I was wrong.

5uspect

espinolman wrote: »

Conventional ***** are responsible for all the pollution in the world .

Wonderful. Dodge the questions much?

espinolman

A new video is on utube called " Interview with colonel x chemtrails / aliens "

Chemtrails are to protect against " technologyically advanced entities " .
"If chemtrails did in fact occur they would be there to provide protection for large centres or masses of populations "
"Primarily to protect us from them"
The aliens are susceptible to certain pathogens .

Monty Burnz

espinolman wrote: »

The aliens are susceptible to certain pathogens .

Which aliens?