Chem trails

RoboClam · 15-12-2009 12:58am

espinolman wrote: »

I would take what the Hopi say seriously , time goes forward and also backwards and some people can percieve the future hence there are prophesies and i thinks thats how they knew and they know what chemtrails are about .

On the quantum level, time can be perceived to move in two directions I guess (reversible chemical reactions and heisenberg uncertainty principle which doesn't allow any subatomic particle to have it's position and momentum known at any particular time). The quantum world is a strange place that doesn't agree with common sense really.

But at the macro level, the apparent eccentricities of the quantum level vanish as the wave functions of particles collapse (except in weird situations like bose-einstein condensates).

So, why did I mention all of this? Well my point is that you would be right if we were talking about the quantum level, but we're not. To us, time is like an arrow. It moves in one direction. There has really been no reason to think otherwise as it has never been demonstrated to the contrary.

Vague predictions are not evidence. Any statement made could pretty much be made to agree with whatever you want it to mean, as has been stated already in the thread.

King Mob · 15-12-2009 1:03am

So if the Hopis or ancient Muslims where able to predict chemtrails how come they didn't say anything about the planes used to create them?
Or anything about the people who are making them?
Or anything about their effects?

If I could predict the future I'd write these details down.

Undergod · 15-12-2009 12:14pm

espinolman wrote: »

Yes but you see the Hopi know about chemtrails as well :

http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4cfOksCZLeyQAOGVLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNGxmazk4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/SIG=124e7c7p7/EXP=1260913188/**http%3a//worldgathering.net/stop/hopiwarnings.html

But how does this support the theory that the selected Quranic passages are talking about chemtrails? I can't imagine the Hopi having influenced the Quran...

But what is interesting, if we are to take that Hopi warning as a prophecy, is the fact it says "from the earth will arise a mystic fog".The 'from the earth' part doesn't seem to be about chemtrails to me.

IrelandSpirit · 19-12-2009 12:08pm

humanji wrote: »

What if we use our six senses and realize that it's still a load of rubbish?

"The camel will fly south for Winter, but the emu took a boat"

And what if we used our common sense and open our eyes to see! We should be passed rubbishing this topic, well-beyond discussing whether or not governments do stuff like this. The Brits admitted back in 2002 that for 40 years they exposed millions to chemicals and bacteria sprayed in secret trials.

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, when asked whether such tests are still being carried out, said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

That's a chilling statement to make: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.' Then who's fukcing policy is it? What happened to informed consent?

Since the late 90s, most governments have been perpetrating an international and ongoing aerosol program; it is coordinated. I've no doubt about that - and of course if you called them up on the phone they will deny it, that's bloody obvious Humanji, even if you did get to talk somebody in the know they won't tell you because it's happening without our informed consent- but you only need to look up at the sky yourself to see what's going on.

humanji · 19-12-2009 12:39pm

That certainly is a chilling comment. Especially when you put a chilling slant on it. If you picture her as a vampire, it's even more chilling. Sadly, if you take what she said, she simply said "No comment". Pity.

And something happening in the past is not proof, or even evidence of it happening in the present. Why can't you see that? Clouds and contrails aren't proof of anything. If you can zip up to them and get a sample for analysys then that would be a start.

The whole idea is pointlessly moronic. It's completely unnecessary and impractical. It's unreliable at best and if there are forces out there with the ability to create such a master plan, then they'd have the cop on to realise that they can get better results with easier, cheaper and more reliable means.

IrelandSpirit · 19-12-2009 1:15pm

humanji wrote: »

That certainly is a chilling comment. Especially when you put a chilling slant on it. If you picture her as a vampire, it's even more chilling. Sadly, if you take what she said, she simply said "No comment". Pity.

And something happening in the past is not proof, or even evidence of it happening in the present. Why can't you see that? Clouds and contrails aren't proof of anything. If you can zip up to them and get a sample for analysys then that would be a start.

The whole idea is pointlessly moronic. It's completely unnecessary and impractical. It's unreliable at best and if there are forces out there with the ability to create such a master plan, then they'd have the cop on to realise that they can get better results with easier, cheaper and more reliable means.

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, when asked whether such tests are still being carried out, said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...medicalscience

Yes that's a chilling statement to make, so what gives you the right to call this a moronic idea? Are you calling us moronic?

Contrails are the exhaust of planes, they leave a trail in the sky which rapidly dissipates. Chemtrails initially look identical to contrails, but rather than the trail dissipating, it expands and starts to look like a cloud, gradually covering the sky with a hazy muck.

If you pay close attention, you will also notice these chemtrails starting and stopping, forming gaps. Those gaps in the trails are one of the many 'smoking guns' - you are not looking at a normal contrail, because to form those gaps in a normal contrail the engines would need to be turned off and the plane would drop from the sky. Apart from the fact they shouldn't be there in the first place, because normal contrails rapidly disappear.

Sometimes you'll see a Chemtrail stop altogether, and NOT reappear as the plane continues across the sky. Use your eyes, look up. Those trails you see that just abruptly end, just hanging there in the sky, ARE NOT contrails.

I don't know what's in Chemtrails, the ones the Brits confessed to was huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide, which is a recognised cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon. And bacteria, including e.coli and bacillus globigii, which mimics anthrax.

To hang in the sky like that for so long it would need to be some kind of very fine material: Aluminium particulates and barium has been suggested, but whatever it is, we were not informed and we did not consent it being there. Why can't you see that?

humanji · 19-12-2009 1:30pm

Contrails will remain in the sky depending on the altitude, weather and a whole host of other factors. To assume they must be chemtrails with absolutely no evidence other than "but sure they look funny" is reaching.

aurelius79 · 19-12-2009 4:30pm

humanji wrote: »

Contrails will remain in the sky depending on the altitude, weather and a whole host of other factors. To assume they must be chemtrails with absolutely no evidence other than "but sure they look funny" is reaching.

Humanji, here's a video to support your argument...

...oh wait...

Ciaran500 · 19-12-2009 4:35pm

aurelius79 wrote: »

Humanji, here's a video to support your argument...

...oh wait...

There is no possible way he could accurately say both planes are at the same height or how far apart they are.

aurelius79 · 19-12-2009 4:50pm

Ciaran500 wrote: »

There is no possible way he could accurately say both planes are at the same height or how far apart they are.

Well, seeing as contrails are only visible above 26k feet, I think it's safe to say they were both above that altitude. What difference does their distance from each other make? They are both leaving trails, one is obviously a contrail, one is obviously not.

humanji · 19-12-2009 6:10pm

aurelius79 wrote: »

Humanji, here's a video to support your argument...

...oh wait...

If he had taken a video over a very long period of time showing the creation of the trails, had the details of the flights, (their heights, speed etc), detailed weather information and information about their geographic location, then that video would mean something.

Instead we've got some pretty shapes. That guy really needs to look up the word proof.

aurelius79 · 19-12-2009 6:22pm

humanji wrote: »

If he had taken a video over a very long period of time showing the creation of the trails, had the details of the flights, (their heights, speed etc), detailed weather information and information about their geographic location, then that video would mean something.

Instead we've got some pretty shapes. That guy really needs to look up the word proof.

What does any of that have to do with one plane showing an obvious contrail and another plane right behind it showing something other than a contrail? You can even see the chemtrails from other planes spreading over a large area. Contrails do not do this. They disappear once the vapor reaches the same temperature as the surrounding air.

You accept that both planes are high enough (above 26k feet) to leave a contrail. Their speed will be identical (or very similar) so that is irrelevant. Both planes are flying through the same conditions so weather and geographic location is irrelevant.

What possible reason is there to explain why one contrail acts as normal, disappearing after a few seconds, and the other trail persists? This is what people want, a simple explanation but nothing is being said. There is no evidence or explanation as to why these contrails are persisting for hours. If you have a reasonable explanation I'd love to hear it.

King Mob · 19-12-2009 6:24pm

aurelius79 wrote: »

What does any of that have to do with one plane showing an obvious contrail and another plane right behind it showing something other than a contrail? You can even see the chemtrails from other planes spreading over a large area. Contrails do not do this. They disappear once the vapor reaches the same temperature as the surrounding air.

You accept that both planes are high enough (above 26k feet) to leave a contrail. Their speed will be identical (or very similar) so that is irrelevant. Both planes are flying through the same conditions so weather and geographic location is irrelevant.

What possible reason is there to explain why one contrail acts as normal, disappearing after a few seconds, and the other trail persists? This is what people want, a simple explanation but nothing is being said. There is no evidence or explanation as to why these contrails are persisting for hours. If you have a reasonable explanation I'd love to hear it.

One could be higher than the other?
And since when does 1:12 mins count as hours?

You know what would settle this: showing a picture of the planes that do this.
That's one thing that never seem to be posted.
You'd think that since these things are everywhere there'd be pictures.

humanji · 19-12-2009 9:16pm

aurelius79 wrote: »

What does any of that have to do with one plane showing an obvious contrail and another plane right behind it showing something other than a contrail?

Basically, if the there hadn't been an admission in the past that chemtrails had happened in the past, there's be no evidence that it happened at all. Do you not realise that? There's no evidence at all. None. It's all just people claiming it's happeneing with a few photos and videos of trails in the sky. Why would anyone assume that a simple trail in the sky is proof positive of a conspiracy

aurelius79 wrote: »

You can even see the chemtrails from other planes spreading over a large area. Contrails do not do this. They disappear once the vapor reaches the same temperature as the surrounding air.

They disappear according to the time, location and chemical makeup of the atmosphere around them. Why should it act differently?

aurelius79 wrote: »

You accept that both planes are high enough (above 26k feet) to leave a contrail.

No i don't, I don't know any of the details of the flights. I don't know anything about them. It would be insane to just assume something about them. Surely you agree?

aurelius79 wrote: »

Their speed will be identical (or very similar) so that is irrelevant.

We don't know that.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Both planes are flying through the same conditions so weather and geographic location is irrelevant.[/quote[

We don't know the conditions of either flight, or even the planes that are flying so, yes, it is completely relevant and since we don't know them it skews any possibly analysis that could be made.

aurelius79 wrote: »

What possible reason is there to explain why one contrail acts as normal, disappearing after a few seconds, and the other trail persists?

I told you already.

aurelius79 wrote: »

This is what people want, a simple explanation but nothing is being said. There is no evidence or explanation as to why these contrails are persisting for hours. If you have a reasonable explanation I'd love to hear it.

There's plenty of reasons and explanations as to why contrails last. Many have been posted here. All you are doing is assuming somethign and selectively taking evidence to back your position. If you approach the subject with an open mind and research the topic, you'll find that there isn't actually any real evidence that the trails you see are chemtrails.

IrelandSpirit · 19-12-2009 9:26pm

Aurelius79, I understand your frustration! And now the sceptics want you to post them pictures of Chemtrails to show that Chemtrails exist when you've already posted them, as have countless others, and the evidence is up there in our skies for all to see. Incredible.

Or perhaps it's all "pointlessly moronic" as humanji says and the incredible part is our capacity to deny what our eyes see, day in day out since the at least the late 1990s when Chemtrailing began in earnest.

Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

indough · 19-12-2009 9:32pm

yeah because any lines in the sky captured on video are definitely chemtrails despite the lack of evidence of support the theory

just like bright lights in the distance are ufo's and not car headlights

ok im being slightly facetious there but you hardly think a few videos of lines in the sky and your say so of them being not like regular contrails constitutes proof of the theory? that would be a bit ridiculous

King Mob · 19-12-2009 9:32pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Aurelius79, I understand your frustration! And now the sceptics want you to post them pictures of Chemtrails to show that Chemtrails exist when you've already posted them, as have countless others, and the evidence is up there in our skies for all to see. Incredible.

That's not what we're asking for at all.
We're asking you to back up claims like "they last for hours".
Or something I asked for a few posts ago: a picture of one of the planes that spread chemtrails.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Or perhaps it's all "pointlessly moronic" as humanji says and the incredible part is our capacity to deny what our eyes see, day in day out since the at least the late 1990s when Chemtrailing began in earnest.

Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

But you see there's nothing to see.
All it is, is people claiming that things indistinguishable from contrails are doing something evil.

Wait, what are they doing exactly?

19-12-2009 9:41pm

I'd just like to ask one question, and I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but...

Is there any evidence that the exhaust gases of planes, i.e. contrails, contain any chemical that could alter or change us humans, animals or plants?

humanji · 19-12-2009 10:16pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Aurelius79, I understand your frustration! And now the sceptics want you to post them pictures of Chemtrails to show that Chemtrails exist when you've already posted them, as have countless others, and the evidence is up there in our skies for all to see. Incredible.

Or perhaps it's all "pointlessly moronic" as humanji says and the incredible part is our capacity to deny what our eyes see, day in day out since the at least the late 1990s when Chemtrailing began in earnest.

Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

Firstly, I know it's easiest to assume someone who doesn't blindly believe what you say is trying to insult you, but what I said was that the idea to poison humanity with chemtrails is moronic because it's so horrifically unreliable.

Now that we've got that out of the way, here's a video that, going by chemtrail enthusiasts, is proof positive that chemtrails are actually contrails:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KLLqEL96Y

See what I did there? I took video footage and claimed it proved me right despite there being no knowledge of what the video is of or who took it. It's all just hearsay. Do you now understand why calling something proof isn't enough to actually make it proof?

squod · 20-12-2009 1:44am

humanji wrote: »

Firstly, I know it's easiest to assume someone who doesn't blindly believe what you say is trying to insult you, but what I said was that the idea to poison humanity with chemtrails is moronic because it's so horrifically unreliable.

Now that we've got that out of the way, here's a video that, going by chemtrail enthusiasts, is proof positive that chemtrails are actually contrails:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KLLqEL96Y

See what I did there? I took video footage and claimed it proved me right despite there being no knowledge of what the video is of or who took it. It's all just hearsay. Do you now understand why calling something proof isn't enough to actually make it proof?

I've tried to read through this thread. It's difficult. It seems some people are adamant that all chemtrails are just contrails. Weather modification companies would leave chemtrails wouldn't they?

My name is URL · 20-12-2009 3:19am

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd just like to ask one question, and I'm sorry if this has been answered already, but...

Is there any evidence that the exhaust gases of planes, i.e. contrails, contain any chemical that could alter or change us humans, animals or plants?

I don't know if there's evidence or not of any cause and effect of additives to aviation fuel, but it contains both Bromine* and Tetra-ethyl lead** amongst other stuff

from Wiki
* Bromide compounds, especially potassium bromide, were frequently used as sedatives in the 19th and early 20th century. Bromides in the form of simple salts are still used as anticonvulsants in both veterinary and human medicine.

** Lead exposure affects the intelligence quotient (IQ) such that a blood lead level of 30 μg/dL is associated with a 6.9-point reduction of IQ, with most reduction (3.9 points) occurring below 10 μg/dL.

Also in the U.S., a statistically significant correlation has been found between the use of TEL and violent crime: taking into account a 22-year time lag, the violent crime curve virtually tracks the lead exposure curve. After the ban on TEL, blood lead levels in U.S. children dramatically decreased.

IrelandSpirit · 20-12-2009 4:31pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't know if there's evidence or not of any cause and effect of additives to aviation fuel, but it contains both Bromine* and Tetra-ethyl lead** amongst other stuff

from Wiki
* Bromide compounds, especially potassium bromide, were frequently used as sedatives in the 19th and early 20th century. Bromides in the form of simple salts are still used as anticonvulsants in both veterinary and human medicine.

** Lead exposure affects the intelligence quotient (IQ) such that a blood lead level of 30 μg/dL is associated with a 6.9-point reduction of IQ, with most reduction (3.9 points) occurring below 10 μg/dL.

Also in the U.S., a statistically significant correlation has been found between the use of TEL and violent crime: taking into account a 22-year time lag, the violent crime curve virtually tracks the lead exposure curve. After the ban on TEL, blood lead levels in U.S. children dramatically decreased.

In addition, it appears that Barium is also used in jet fuel, both in commercial and military aircraft.

From: www.bariumblues.com

Barium is just as dangerous as arsenic, mercury and lead and it shows up regularly in public water supplies. Barium is a major component of chemtrails. When it falls to earth it also contaminates our water supplies.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Exposure to small amounts of barium, dissolved in water, may cause a person to experience these problems:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 1. Breathing difficulties
2. Increased blood pressure
3. Heart rhythm changes
4. Stomach irritation
5. Muscle weakness
6. Alterations in nerve reflexes
7. Damage to your brain, liver, kidney and heart[/FONT]

Much photo evidence of chemtrails is on that site too.

Undergod · 20-12-2009 11:27pm

But if this is to be considered relevant, then surely we're talking about "harmful additives in aviation fuel", not "some planes spread dangerous chemical trails and some don't."

squod · 20-12-2009 11:56pm

Undergod wrote: »

But if this is to be considered relevant, then surely we're talking about "harmful additives in aviation fuel", not "some planes spread dangerous chemical trails and some don't."

There's obviously a sh*tload of weather modification companies using different chemicals. I wonder if (for example) the barium posted above is for use in this process.

Undergod · 20-12-2009 11:59pm

There are weather modification companies? Badass! Any links?

Fact remains though, these past few posts referred to the chemicals in aviation fuel, which is totally different to the chemtrails in CTs. If that was what chemtrails were, then EVERY plane would be leaving chemtrails, and most of the evidence presented would be discredited.

squod · 21-12-2009 12:07am

Undergod wrote: »

There are weather modification companies? Badass! Any links?

Fact remains though, these past few posts referred to the chemicals in aviation fuel, which is totally different to the chemtrails in CTs. If that was what chemtrails were, then EVERY plane would be leaving chemtrails, and most of the evidence presented would be discredited.

You could just google them, http://www.weathermod.com/index.php for example. There's also lots of data available on the US weather modification bill.

Also if you google weather modification chemicals you'll get good data, alot of it on polymers to soak moisture etc. Can't yet find the barium that Ireland Spirit talks of I suspect it's use a semiconductor would be usefull as a lightning or storm deterent.

aurelius79 · 21-12-2009 8:35pm

humanji wrote: »

That certainly is a chilling comment. Especially when you put a chilling slant on it. If you picture her as a vampire, it's even more chilling. Sadly, if you take what she said, she simply said "No comment". Pity.

And something happening in the past is not proof, or even evidence of it happening in the present. Why can't you see that? Clouds and contrails aren't proof of anything. If you can zip up to them and get a sample for analysys then that would be a start.

The whole idea is pointlessly moronic. It's completely unnecessary and impractical. It's unreliable at best and if there are forces out there with the ability to create such a master plan, then they'd have the cop on to realise that they can get better results with easier, cheaper and more reliable means.

Interesting argument. So in your opinion, we should let the Nazi party reform with the hope that it won't try to kill millions of people again? I mean, just because they did in the past doesn't mean they'll do it again right?

Well, that happened in the 1950s, no way the U.S. government would try secretly testing on humans again. Oh wait, what about the testing of Agent Orange on soldiers in Viet Nam and on Adventists at Fort Detrick? Ok, so maybe they won't test on humans after that. So why is there a law passed in 1997 in the U.S. that actually permits the testing of potentially lethal biological and chemical agents on human subjects?

PUBLIC LAW 105–85—NOV. 18, 1997 section 1078

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/1998NDAA.pdf

Edit: That law also allowed the creation of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. (section 1076)

http://www.ngycp.org/site/

Anyone remember the Nazi Youth program?

My name is URL · 04-01-2010 1:37pm

I took this pic just now - http://i45.tinypic.com/2r2ve68.jpg

the trails are lingering for ages, and seem to be spreading out.. are the weather conditions causing this?

espinolman · 04-01-2010 1:42pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I took this pic just now - http://i45.tinypic.com/2r2ve68.jpg

the trails are lingering for ages, and seem to be spreading out.. are the weather conditions causing this?

Take another picture in an hour or two of the same trails and we will be able to see them spreading out

My name is URL · 04-01-2010 1:53pm

espinolman wrote: »

Take another picture in an hour or two of the same trails and we will be able to see them spreading out

I'll try to get more pics in a while, they get hard to photgraph after a while because when they convalesce they start to look like a light cloud cover

here's another one I just took.. you can see how they seem to join up

http://i47.tinypic.com/28md63a.jpg

and one that shows 2 jets following the path of the trails already there.. I don't think I've seen so many jets in such quick succession before..

http://i50.tinypic.com/2iasgua.jpg

Chem trails

Comments