CHEMTRAILS

demonspawn wrote: »

Monsanto clearly admitting high concentrations of aluminum in the tropics in the PDF I provided is proof enough.

Your link shows that aluminium concentration in soil is greater is certain areas. No one here would argue this point. However, you came to the conclusion that this fact supports the idea of chemtrails. Here's a few papers on aluminium in soils.


Link

Aluminium (Al) is a natural constituent of all soils and its different forms are widely distributed over the soil profile. Aluminium represents 8% of the total soil mineral content. Most soil Al is bound to the soil mineral structure with only a relatively small proportion released to soil solution. Nevertheless, Boudot et al. consider soil solution transport due to high precipitation under acidic conditions together with dissolution of amorphous Al forms and some other potentially toxic elements, to be a chemical time-bomb [1]. This process represents a serious threat mainly in soils under forest cover [2 and 3].
Aluminium concentration in soil solution depends mainly on soil pH, as has been observed and proved by many researchers. However, the influence of soil pH on Al behaviour is strongly modified by the presence of complexing fractions of soil organic matter [4 and 5]. The distribution of organically bound Al forms between solid and liquid soil phases results from several equilibrium processes. Aluminium can form mobile, easily soluble complexes with low molecular weight organic matter [5], but it can also be bound into insoluble organic complexes [6]. Obviously, the content and quality of soil organic matter is determined by soil exploitation and the type of vegetation cover.
The form of soil Al is a key factor in its potential bioavailability and toxicity. While most soil Al is harmless to living organisms, labile Al forms can enter the food chain and consequently can be potentially toxic to all living organisms including human beings. Aluminium toxicity to plants may lead to decreasing crop yields and serious forest damage

Link

Acidic soils (pH ≤ 5.5) represent around 40–50% of potentially arable soils in the world [25] and [50]. Aluminium (Al) toxicity is a major factor limiting agricultural production in these soils [25] because the concentration of Al (Al3+) in the soil solution increases with decreasing pH. In the rhizosphere, which is defined as the soil adjacent to and influenced by the root [27], external and internal mechanisms of Al tolerance in mircroorganisms and plants have been proposed. External mechanisms are the release of chelating compounds (organic acids) while internal mechanisms refer to detoxification within the cells by proteins that bind Al or the presence of Al-tolerant enzymes. It is known that Al-tolerant bacteria are also resistant to acidity, however acid tolerance does not guarantee Al tolerance [24].
In southern Chile, acidic volcanic soils (Andisols and Ultisols) are the predominant soil types supporting the bulk of agricultural and forestry production. These soils are characterized by pH values between 4.5 and 5.5 and high amounts of extractable and exchangeable Al [34]. The low pH is mainly caused by heavy rainfall during the winter months and use of acidifying N fertilizers such as urea [31] and [33]. The acidification results in an increase in Al3+ concentration in the soil solution, which can reduce plant growth due to Al-toxicity.

My point being, the reasons for differing levels of Aluminium in soils can be explained without assuming chemtrails are the cause.

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss what I said in previous posts because some of what I said is probably wrong. I'm not a scientist and don't have access to classified or unpublished materials. The internet only provides so much information before you hit a brick wall.

No, you're not a scientist. Neither am I. Neither of us are qualified to interpret soil analysis. All we saw was some guy holding up an isolated test result. There are literally dozens of possible explanations, such as the particular site he took it from having those concentrations (industrial run off etc) or him contaminating the sample with his gathering methods.

The point is, there are thousands of people in the world who are experts in this sort of thing and they don't seem to think anything unusual is going on. A video on youtube is not going to convince me of a decades old international conspiracy, and it's certainly not going to convince me of all the bizarrely specific details you trot out without basis.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You do tend to believe blatant IDF propoganda on the BBC though...

You've lost me. Leaving aside this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread when have I actually supported the IDF or Israel?
I may be tired of the constant "the jews dunnit" rubbish from Ct'ers but I certainly do not support a lot of Israel's actions, especially recently.

demonspawn wrote: »

I posted this on page one. Am I psychic? No, I just know better by now. I know how you guys operate. You ask for evidence, that evidence is provided, then you demand more. It will never be enough for some of you, and that makes me a little bit sad inside.

You quoted one isolated incident. If this is going on then the evidence would be all over the place but it isn't.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The point is that you can were all high and mighty about dismissing online content when you yourself have been duped by the BBC. What is the difference?

I have no idea what you're on about. When exactly have I quoted the BBC last on anything?

demonspawn wrote: »

Not necessarily, you see many people are afraid to speak about what they know because of the vast army of people just like you who do nothing but seek to humiliate and discredit those people.

If you saw a UFO tonight, would you go into work tomorrow telling everyone you saw a UFO? I doubt it, nobody likes to be laughed at by their peers.

Oh, and my point for quoting myself was to illustrate that no matter how much evidence is put forward, people like you will just discount it as fantasy or simply demand more evidence.

I suppose this is where I call Occam's Razor. For chemtrails to be real we need a vast conspiracy to be true. We need this conspiracy to cover the whole world, where everyone stays silent and not one person releases a test result which shows the poisoning. This scenario is very unlikely indeed. Obviously it's quite possible that through industrial or other pollution that some of these results could be found somewhere but using planes would be indiscriminate and the metals/chemicals would be everywhere. And if they're everywhere we're back to everyone being in on it. Seriously you could get a test done now, how would anyone stop you.

It's one thing some redneck saying he was anally probed and quite another for scientists and environmentalists all over the world to say we're being poisoned. And to be clear about this if your theory made any sense I'd back you, it doesn't so I'm not. If I go on to a public message board and say things as fact I can't then backup I won't be remotely surprised if someone laughs at me. Though no one has laughed at you, they've looked at what you posted, analysed the evidence and looked at the probabilities and found it doesn't add up.

meglome wrote: »

I suppose this is where I call Occam's Razor. For chemtrails to be real we need a vast conspiracy to be true. We need this conspiracy to cover the whole world, where everyone stays silent and not one person releases a test result which shows the poisoning.

Here's the thing about applying Occram's Razor to this stuff.. the conspiracy does not need to 'cover the whole world', it only needs to cover those who are charged with forming, and trusted in their opinions/hypotheses/theories. If someone questions those people; they're likely to be called a crackpot, or accused of having an ulterior motive because it doesn't adhere to a widely held belief.. a belief which mainly exists because of compartmentalisation of specialties. It would take a larger group to disprove something than it would to maintain the widely held belief.

I don't believe that we're being poisoned, or controlled by any chemical btw.

How about the hypothesis that weather is being regulated with the help of contrails? No chemicals, poisoning or any other sadistic idea of control.. is that any more believable?

joebucks wrote: »

There were 5 planes flying in what appeared to be a pattern yesterday morning. Their contrails seemed to form clouds. This seemed strange to me. Got a problem with that?

This is the worst example of contrailing I've seen.. or best; depending on how you see it :pac:

Took these pics in Jan this year -

http://i45.tinypic.com/2r2ve68.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/28md63a.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2iasgua.jpg

It's awful that our skies can be ruined by them, regardless of what effect they have

demonspawn wrote: »

Why do we keep coming back to this? I have never claimed anything as fact in this thread. I've expressed my opinion and backed that up with irrefutable evidence. Not once did I claim anything here as fact, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Ok, so you've analyzed the evidence. Please be so kind as to debunk the water reports shown in the video I posted. And don't try the "it could be false" argument because falsifying official documents is called fraud and it's punishable with a lengthy prison sentence. If that man and the little girl did in fact falsify those documents, please direct me to the news article stating that they have both been charged with fraud.

When you can debunk those water reports I'll happily move on to present more evidence.

I don't think the reports are false, but your argument that if the reports were falsified there would surely be an online news article showing people arrested is patently silly.

Regardless the levels of aluminium and barium found in the rainwater are well within natural levels, as has been shown before aluminium is abundant in soils and has leeched into lakes and rivers - in great amounts when acidic rain was more prevelant.

The levels of barium are 8 ug/l, that's 8 parts barium to 1,000,000,000 parts water. The safe levels prescibed by the EPA are 2mg/l or 2,000 ug/l, so that's 250 times under the safe level. Barium occurs naturally.

The levels of aluminium in drinking water is not regulated by the EPA because most of your aluminium consumption comes from food rather than water, (drinking water accounts for about 2% of aluminium consumption). They do issue guidelines on aluminium levels based on WHO guides, the levels are in excess of those guidelines but not higher than can be found naturally or indeed in bottled water in Australia, see previous link.