CHEMTRAILS

demonspawn · 01-09-2010 11:38PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

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.

No, the levels shown by the tests are well outside the "natural levels". I'll post the video again in cased you missed the part where he's holding up the report. The segment I'd like you to watch again begins at 1:21.

Now, according to the report, normal levels of aluminum are 0.5 ug/l
The maximum allowable levels for drinking water are 50 ug/l
The level of aluminum in the rainwater sample was 1,010 ug/l
Government action is required at levels over 1,000 ug/l

Please explain this one away.

Also please note that this guy Francis Mangels is a retired USDA biologist, not some hillbilly living up in the mountains somewhere.

demonspawn · 01-09-2010 11:52PM

While I was reading about Mr. Mangels, I came across this lovely bit of information. It's a transcript of a conference held by government workers speaking about environmental ethics and whistleblowers. It may shed some light on why more people have not yet come forward with their evidence.

Jeff DeBonis, Executive Director of Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (ASFEEE) (former FS employee). "We're here because it hurts." Government agencies are no longer doing the good work they were established to do. Agencies have become instruments of political pork barrel politics. Agency repression is endemic. It is against employees who still believe in the public trust, still believe in safety, still believe in environmental protection, still resist politicization. It hurts to be a combat biologist--they aren't battling issues that would help the American public; they are battling supervisors.

It makes for a great read.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew920330

Edit: More interesting reading from that site:

Jeffrey Van Ee, Electronic Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Received many awards for his environmental efforts in Nevada, done on his own
time and at his own expense. After testifying at a tortoise study hearing,
received a letter of reprimand and investigated for criminal charges. Denied
free speech. Charged with conflict of interest and violation of 18 USC 205:
acting as an agent in controversy where U.S. is party." Expects his case will
go to the Supreme Court; argues that a member of a scientific organization must
be able to speak own mind.

Felix Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Retired from FWS after 34
years. Said good people work in F&WS, but said political appointees are afraid
of the truth, and sometimes cover it up. Was involved in discovery and
publicizing of selenium toxicity in agricultural run-off waters into water in
California. Received help from press in exposing what was going on.
Recommended Harris' book entitled, "Death in the Marsh," about government
withholding information.

Howard Wiltshire, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Geologist and Senior Scientist.
Talked about stricter penalities now for violations of 18 USC 205 and made the
point that scientific information is proprietary to the government so that
scientitst that work for the government cannot testify as expert winesses in
their areas of expertise. Don't get ulcers, give ulcers. Talked about the
effect of politics and economics on USGS work, especially regarding
methodologies for estimating oil and mineral material resources. He said that
"facts are often the enemy of truth."

Ed Bricker, Health Physicist, State of Washington, Department of Health (former
employee of Westinghouse Hanford Company) reported interrogations, harassment,
intimidation, psychiatric examinations, phone tapping, house broken into,
packages arriving in the mail opened, and that his family suffered. Referred
to Good Housekeeping April coverage of Whistleblowing trauma to families.

Gary Lekvold, former security engineer, Westinghouse Hanford Company.
Experienced whitewash; co-workers changed his input; was subjected to
psychological testing and intense investigation; outrageous allegations made
against him; lost his security clearance. Tried and failed to get support from
four layers of management. Suspended for "insubordination". After
admininstrative procedures ended, sued in court and won.

Jeboa Safari · 01-09-2010 11:59PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

There wouldn't be any jet training schools in Ireland, you are obviously under the intersection of 2 flight paths. Strange as it may seem, planes don't fly direct from A to B, in busy airspace they follow flightpaths set by air traffic control.

Next time you see them check out this site, you can see exactly where the planes are going.

http://www.flightradar24.com/

Heres a fairly cool video, shows all flights in a 24 hours period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NFGD9cglb4

joebucks · 02-09-2010 03:31PM

demonspawn wrote: »

While I was reading about Mr. Mangels, I came across this lovely bit of information. It's a transcript of a conference held by government workers speaking about environmental ethics and whistleblowers. It may shed some light on why more people have not yet come forward with their evidence.

It makes for a great read.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew920330

Edit: More interesting reading from that site:

Interesting stuff alright.

This article details some testing done between 1940 and 1979.

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

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

demonspawn · 02-09-2010 08:27PM

I love how the debunkers are nowhere to be found now. Oh well, back to the lab. :rolleyes:

jay93 · 02-09-2010 08:49PM

demonspawn wrote: »

Perhaps Ireland doesn't see the concentration of chemtrails that other countries see.

No they haven't, hence the whole "climategate" scandal we've seen recently. Scientists are currently unable to account for the recent drop in global temperatures. I don't really think you know enough on this subject to make accurate statements.

Anyway, this is the problem with being a skeptic. You refuse to believe what's staring you in the face, regardless of any evidence provided. As such, I'm not going to pull my hair out trying to provide what you may deem as sufficient evidence to prove my case. You either get it or you don't.

You are fairly right there temperatures are falling and not rising the cock and bull they feed people 'OH THE PLANETS HEATING UP ' dont think so as far as i can see temperatures are getting colder and colder also last winter was amazingly cold ive never seen such cold waether before in my life!!!!even more evidence that we are cooling down supposed its better than been baked by hot temps

Jeboa Safari · 02-09-2010 09:02PM

jay93 wrote: »

You are fairly right there temperatures are falling and not rising the cock and bull they feed people 'OH THE PLANETS HEATING UP ' dont think so as far as i can see temperatures are getting colder and colder also last winter was amazingly cold ive never seen such cold waether before in my life!!!!even more evidence that we are cooling down supposed its better than been baked by hot temps

Why do you write in italics? Looks like attention seeking to me. No attempt at grammar either. Straight onto my ignore list

My name is URL · 02-09-2010 09:10PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why do you write in italics? Looks like attention seeking to me. No attempt at grammar either. Straight onto my ignore list

And you felt the need to share that with everyone else? At least he made an attempt to take part in discussion civilly and not just lace into someone else's grammar & style. I think most people could be doing with ignoring the likes of the latter, and allowing threads to run on their own merits

Jeboa Safari · 02-09-2010 09:21PM

My name is URL wrote: »

And you felt the need to share that with everyone else? At least he made an attempt to take part in discussion civilly and not just lace into someone else's grammar & style. I think most people could be doing with ignoring the likes of the latter, and allowing threads to run on their own merits

Should be able to do it without changing the style of the text in my opinion, makes it harder to read.

One of my pet hates, that and people who post their entire post in colour :mad:

espinolman · 02-09-2010 10:17PM

Co . monaghan is being chemtrailed .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY5ra9dQD_c

meglome · 02-09-2010 11:24PM

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Well these people are all over of the world so the conspiracy would need cover the whole world. Anyone, anywhere could test the soil or water but where are these tests? No matter now you look at this it would be thousands of people you'd need to keep quiet. So yes the view of a scientist would be taken over someone who has no expertise in that area but you'd still need to corrupt all the scientists. And in this case lots of people are claiming a lot of things which could be easily tested but for some reason they don't test, they seem to rather want to believe some youtube videos.

My name is URL wrote: »

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?

Well it seems possible that all the thousands of planes generally are affecting the weather but I've seen no evidence that it's being done intentionally.

My name is URL wrote: »

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

Glad to hear it as there's no evidence for it.

demonspawn wrote: »

I love how the debunkers are nowhere to be found now. Oh well, back to the lab. :rolleyes:

You posted a list of people that appears to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm still trying to understand how you can take something as true when found one study which shows possible contamination which could be from anywhere. When it's supposedly happening all over the world, even here in Ireland.

Where are all the meteorologists saying the cloud formations are odd? I think you'll find they are saying the opposite.

bonkey · 03-09-2010 05:50AM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why do you write in italics? Looks like attention seeking to me. No attempt at grammar either. Straight onto my ignore list

You're not adding to the discussion with comments like that.

If you want to discuss someone's use of italics, PM them. We don't need to be in on it.

demonspawn · 03-09-2010 05:22PM

meglome wrote: »

Well these people are all over of the world so the conspiracy would need cover the whole world. Anyone, anywhere could test the soil or water but where are these tests? No matter now you look at this it would be thousands of people you'd need to keep quiet. So yes the view of a scientist would be taken over someone who has no expertise in that area but you'd still need to corrupt all the scientists. And in this case lots of people are claiming a lot of things which could be easily tested but for some reason they don't test, they seem to rather want to believe some youtube videos.

demonspawn wrote: »

No, the levels shown by the tests are well outside the "natural levels". I'll post the video again in cased you missed the part where he's holding up the report. The segment I'd like you to watch again begins at 1:21.

Now, according to the report, normal levels of aluminum are 0.5 ug/l
The maximum allowable levels for drinking water are 50 ug/l
The level of aluminum in the rainwater sample was 1,010 ug/l
Government action is required at levels over 1,000 ug/l

Please explain this one away.

Also please note that this guy Francis Mangels is a retired USDA biologist, not some hillbilly living up in the mountains somewhere.

To answer your first question, freedom of speech does not exist all over the world. You think scientists in China are free to just say what they like?

Maybe you missed my post, or maybe you're just choosing to ignore the evidence. Either way, would you please address the rainwater tests in this video I embedded twice now? You keep demanding proof but then ignore it when it's provided.

A couple of posts after that video explains how thousands of people can be kept quite, apparently the U.S. Forest Service has been doing it for years. Can you also address that issue while you're at it?

Just saying there's no evidence over and over doesn't make it true.

demonspawn · 03-09-2010 05:28PM

meglome wrote: »

You posted a list of people that appears to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm still trying to understand how you can take something as true when found one study which shows possible contamination which could be from anywhere. When it's supposedly happening all over the world, even here in Ireland.

Where are all the meteorologists saying the cloud formations are odd? I think you'll find they are saying the opposite.

Those people are employees of the U.S. Forest Service that are giving examples of how they've been silenced, harassed, threatened, had their work altered by management, removed from their positions....it has everything to do with this argument. Where are all these people with evidence? They're being silenced by people much higher up than them.

You refuse to see the evidence right in front of your face.

And before you come back with "Well our government wouldn't do something like that."

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

Soveriegn · 03-09-2010 09:17PM

I live in the Clonsilla area in Dublin. 8am on wednesday morning was beautiful blue skies. Next thing I see there are jets passing all over the skies leaving huge trails behind. Within a matter of hours the trails had spread out to cover the whole sky in a hazy looking fog.

PIsses me off big-time. For 1 they are killing our direct sunshine which keeps us healthy providing essential vitamin D. Also, Sunshine makes us happy, we go to the beach/swimming etc, spend more time with the family/kids, socialise more and so on.

There has to be chemicals in these trails in order for them to do what they are supposed to do. Are these chemicals good for us ? good for crops, do they get into the water supply ??

Did they ask me for my permission to drop chemicals on me ? no.

RoboClam · 04-09-2010 02:37AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

I live in the Clonsilla area in Dublin. 8am on wednesday morning was beautiful blue skies. Next thing I see there are jets passing all over the skies leaving huge trails behind. Within a matter of hours the trails had spread out to cover the whole sky in a hazy looking fog.

PIsses me off big-time. For 1 they are killing our direct sunshine which keeps us healthy providing essential vitamin D. Also, Sunshine makes us happy, we go to the beach/swimming etc, spend more time with the family/kids, socialise more and so on.

There has to be chemicals in these trails in order for them to do what they are supposed to do. Are these chemicals good for us ? good for crops, do they get into the water supply ??

Did they ask me for my permission to drop chemicals on me ? no.

It's water vapour. Do you ever fly abroad on holidays? Yes? Well then you're part of the "problem".

Soveriegn · 04-09-2010 02:58AM

RoboClam wrote: »

It's water vapour. Do you ever fly abroad on holidays? Yes? Well then you're part of the "problem".

With the risk of sounding stupid... doesn't water vapour evaporate under the heat of the sun ?

EDIT: So, water vapour filled the whole blue skies.. ? that's your answer to this ? You think that would be normal ?

Jeboa Safari · 04-09-2010 03:00AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

With the risk of sounding stupid... doesn't water vapour evaporate under the heat of the sun ?

It's not very warm up there
Clouds don't just evaporate into space

digme · 04-09-2010 04:48AM

chem trails are not real .....

espinolman · 04-09-2010 08:55AM

aero planes are not real .....

namloc1980 · 04-09-2010 10:34AM

Soveriegn wrote: »

With the risk of sounding stupid... doesn't water vapour evaporate under the heat of the sun ?

EDIT: So, water vapour filled the whole blue skies.. ? that's your answer to this ? You think that would be normal ?

What do you think clouds are made of????? That's right...water vapour!!! Clouds are perfectly normal don't you think?

demonspawn · 04-09-2010 06:44PM

espinolman wrote: »

aero planes are not real .....

You're not real....GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!

Oh, and yes. Chemtrails are real. Still waiting for the debunkers to debunk the rainwater tests in my video. I've stopped holding my breath though.

demonspawn · 04-09-2010 06:50PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

What do you think clouds are made of????? That's right...water vapour!!! Clouds are perfectly normal don't you think?

You need certain conditions to be met for clouds to form. If those conditions are not met, the clouds do not form or existing clouds simply disperse. This is why natural contrails disperse quite quickly after being formed.

If a contrail creates a large cloud, then there must be existing clouds in the sky as the conditions allow for naturally occurring clouds. When the proper conditions exist, clouds form naturally from the vast amount of moisture already present in the atmosphere. Why then do contrails leave clouds in a perfectly clear sky? The conditions do not exist for such a cloud to form, as there are no other naturally occurring clouds. There should be other naturally occurring clouds up there too, but there are not.

Sorry if I repeated myself there, just wanted to drive the point home.

RoboClam · 04-09-2010 07:09PM

demonspawn wrote: »

You're not real....GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!

Oh, and yes. Chemtrails are real. Still waiting for the debunkers to debunk the rainwater tests in my video. I've stopped holding my breath though.

One video of "rainwater tests" is enough for you to accept that chemtrails are real. You use a youtube video to show your claim while I showed properly researched scientific papers to show mine. You aren't going to agree with me no matter what I say anyway. Plus, to properly examine the evidence I'd need more than a video of some person holding up a set of results to a camera.

How could I possibly come up with my own conclusions without proper access to the data?

RoboClam · 04-09-2010 07:11PM

demonspawn wrote: »

You need certain conditions to be met for clouds to form. If those conditions are not met, the clouds do not form or existing clouds simply disperse. This is why natural contrails disperse quite quickly after being formed.

If a contrail creates a large cloud, then there must be existing clouds in the sky as the conditions allow for naturally occurring clouds. When the proper conditions exist, clouds form naturally from the vast amount of moisture already present in the atmosphere. Why then do contrails leave clouds in a perfectly clear sky? The conditions do not exist for such a cloud to form, as there are no other naturally occurring clouds. There should be other naturally occurring clouds up there too, but there are not.

Sorry if I repeated myself there, just wanted to drive the point home.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/Contrail_Formation_English.jpg

demonspawn · 04-09-2010 07:20PM

RoboClam wrote: »

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/Contrail_Formation_English.jpg

You got another source other than NASA? This is the CT forum, you should know better. :rolleyes:

4. Water drops evaporate, but ice persists

How does that work then? If the air temperature is warm enough to evaporate water drops, how is it not warm enough to melt ice particles?

Edit: The example shows how water vapor condenses, turns to ice, then melts and evaporates again. This process doesn't take hours or days. As I said, when the conditions that allow persistent contrails to exist, naturally occurring clouds should also exist as there is always some amount of naturally occurring moisture in the air.

RoboClam · 04-09-2010 07:22PM

demonspawn wrote: »

You got another source other than NASA? This is the CT forum, you should know better. :rolleyes:

I'm all out of youtube links, sorry

demonspawn · 04-09-2010 07:32PM

RoboClam wrote: »

I'm all out of youtube links, sorry

That's too bad, because the example provided by NASA fails to account for another important variable in the formation of clouds...air pressure.

RoboClam · 04-09-2010 07:46PM

demonspawn wrote: »

How does that work then? If the air temperature is warm enough to evaporate water drops, how is it not warm enough to melt ice particles?

To put it simply, it does not take boiling of water for it to become gas. ~0.01 degrees Celsius is the triple point of water, where it can exist as a solid liquid and gas. So at these kinds of temperatures it's easy for ice particles to persist.

Edit: The example shows how water vapor condenses, turns to ice, then melts and evaporates again. This process doesn't take hours or days. As I said, when the conditions that allow persistent contrails to exist, naturally occurring clouds should also exist as there is always some amount of naturally occurring moisture in the air.

I do see what you are saying, but why is there not always clouds? By your logic there should never be a time when clouds do not form in the sky. Jet engines introduce more moisture into the air which allows for the formation of contrails which can become clouds.

demonspawn · 04-09-2010 08:06PM

RoboClam wrote: »

I do see what you are saying, but why is there not always clouds? By your logic there should never be a time when clouds do not form in the sky. Jet engines introduce more moisture into the air which allows for the formation of contrails which can become clouds.

Because the conditions required for the formation of clouds do not always exist. The water that condenses on particles from the exhaust is already in the atmosphere. There is some moisture that comes from the jet fuel, but the majority of that moisture already exists in the atmosphere.

Also, if you're familiar with how jet engines work, all the air that exits the back of the engine actually comes from the front of the engine to begin with. Jets take in massive amounts of air from the surrounding atmosphere, compress it through a tube at high speed which is then mixed with a combustible material (jet fuel), ignited, then is expelled out the back. Most, if not all, of that moisture released out the back is already present in the surrounding atmosphere.

CHEMTRAILS

Comments