CHEMTRAILS

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 06:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

So then if you're "not suggesting anything" and saying that you'd "be a fool to try and tell me one way or another", how can you say with any confidence that the trail not coming from wing is a sign that it is not a condensation trail?

as another member said planes also have auxilary power units on the tail but no way would a pilot cut his main engines and run on auxilary and if he did have a technical issue its highly unlikely two planes in the same airspace at the same time(which is also illeagal) were both running on auxilary power only and Ive already asked someone to explain why are the trails intermittent. No one has responded not even those of you who think they are top level researchers. I will put this link again for any one who might have missed it and I will stress Im not here to educate but to be educated and I wont disregard any solid info but please enough with the commercial flight bull. I asked a friend to check planefinder.net at the time I was looking at these planes and he said there was not supposed to be any over Kildare
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/
http://www.planefinder.net/

Brown Bomber · 22-01-2011 06:29PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, that's the way to find the truth. Only talk to people who agree with you even if they think that this is evidence for their beliefs, and ignore the people who point out that it's an obvious joke.

If you can't tell the difference between ridiculing someone publically for making a mistake and pointing out a joke that's your problem.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I laughed before when someone complained about their post being moved to the 'intellectual ghetto' that is the CT board, but now I see what they meant.

:pac::pac:

Shocked!!! Shocked I am!!! This is news to me.!!! I never would have guessed you felt this way before.!!!

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 06:32PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

as another member said planes also have auxilary power units on the tail

The auxiliary power unit is basically a windmill that powers the electronics on the plane, it doesn't propel the plane at all (in fact it slows it down). So it doesn't produce any exhaust at all.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

but no way would a pilot cut his main engines and run on auxilary and if he did have a technical issue its highly unlikely two planes in the same airspace at the same time(which is also illeagal) were both running on auxilary power only and Ive already asked someone to explain why are the trails intermittent.

Well two reasons the trails might be intermittent - if the engine is throttled back it will presumably reduce the amount of exhaust fumes coming out. That wouldn't explain the trails stopping dead though, if you've seen that. Another reason might be that if the trails are from condensation caused by the wings rather than exhaust gasses, the angle of attack of the wind will be a factor, as will the amount of water in the air itself which will vary from place to place. By the way, how do you know that the planes were in the same 'airspace' at the same time? Remember that from the ground you are only getting a 2d picture of the sky.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

No one has responded not even those of you who think they are top level researchers.

That sounds like something caseyann would say

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

I will put this link again for any one who might have missed it and I will stress Im not here to educate but to be educated and I wont disregard any solid info but please enough with the commercial flight bull.

Until you disprove it, it's not bull. You haven't disproved it.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

I asked a friend to check planefinder.net at the time I was looking at these planes and he said there was not supposed to be any over Kildare
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/
http://www.planefinder.net/

Planefinder does not list all the planes, and probably not even most planes. I;m not 'top level researcher' but I just went to that site and it shows not a single plane over the Atlantic ocean right now, and not a single one over the Pacific. That's half of the world's surface. It does not take a genius to figure out that not all flights are in there.

So my points if you'd like to address them:

Auxillary power system is just a windmill and produces no gasses
Trails may be intermittent due to level of engine power, angle of attack of wings, varying levels of vapour in the atmosphere.
How can you tell planes are in same airspace when looking up from the ground?
How do you know that the flights are not commercial (or private passenger, or freight delivery) flights?
Planefinder does not show all planes - it might not even show most planes.

Edit: by the way, on point 2 those are only guesses, I'm no expert on that stuff and as usual you will get much better answers on the aviation board, as long as we can all agree that they are not another branch of the conspiracy...

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 06:33PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, that's the way to find the truth. Only talk to people who agree with you even if they think that this is evidence for their beliefs, and ignore the people who point out that it's an obvious joke.

I laughed before when someone complained about their post being moved to the 'intellectual ghetto' that is the CT board, but now I see what they meant.

your right you will never get anywhere without talking to the opposition as they can shed light on areas that were overlooked or burried be it on purpose or thru "clouded" judgment. nobody should ignore anyone nor should they feel the need to if somene is wrong abut one point lets not dwell on it and it doesnt mean they are wrong about everything either. We learn thru our mistakes we dont learn by being right first time round. We are all human mistakes are made every day by EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE thats how we are where we are today

22-01-2011 06:35PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

as another member said planes also have auxilary power units on the tail but no way would a pilot cut his main engines and run on auxilary and if he did have a technical issue its highly unlikely two planes in the same airspace at the same time(which is also illeagal) were both running on auxilary power only

Unless the contrail was the only one producing the correct temperature and pressure to form a contrail... Or that the contrails only become visible after a certain distance from the engines, making it look like it's coming from the tail... Or maybe that you simply couldn't see it properly... Or any one of a thousand explanations that don't include a massive global conspiracy.

Also how exactly do you know how far apart these planes where?

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

and Ive already asked someone to explain why are the trails intermittent.

Because the plane varies in height as does the temperature and pressure.
The plane could have simply climbed or lowered to a height where a contrail wouldn't form or that it hit an area of different temperature or pressure or they simply throttled back on the engines for whatever reason.
Again a thousand explanations which don't include a conspiracy.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

No one has responded not even those of you who think they are top level researchers. I will put this link again for any one who might have missed it and I will stress Im not here to educate but to be educated and I wont disregard any solid info but please enough with the commercial flight bull. I asked a friend to check planefinder.net at the time I was looking at these planes and he said there was not supposed to be any over Kildare
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/
http://www.planefinder.net/

1. How do you know that the planefinder is showing all the flights?
Isn't it possible that it's only displaying the information of flights that it's able to get information on doing a simple internet search?
2. What exactly is the other link meant to be exactly?

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 06:37PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shocked!!! Shocked I am!!! This is news to me.!!! I never would have guessed you felt this way before.!!!

Do you have anything to say about chemtrails at all? Or are you just here to argue?

Samba · 22-01-2011 06:37PM

If people clearly feel so strongly on the subject do some investigative work and present your results.

I like to keep an open mind myself but unfortunately the evidence against CTs is overwhelming.

There's been many suggestions for methods to test your theory which should be relatively inexpensive to carry out.

The cheapest would be to buy an aluminium tester and start at your local water supply and compare with previous readings.

Who's going to put their time and money where their mouth is?

hawkwind23 · 22-01-2011 06:38PM

standard forum digression.
try to stick to the subject matter rather than the immature bickering.

i only heard about contrails/chemtrails on thursday evening.
researched friday and then this was mentioned on the RTE weather that evening.

steering away from the chemicals etc for now.

would this not therefore suggest that in the dublin area we have confirmation of heavy air traffic having an impact on cloud formation.

would this not further warrent official confirmation that cloud formations due to contrails will have no lasting effect on the enviroment?

if clouds are being formed due to excessive air traffic then surely this would have an impact on climate and temperatures etc.

so for this reason i welcome this thread.
for the contrails to be mentioned on rte news then people have been asking about it.
i would like people to keep asking and maybe we can get an official government response to wether artifical cloud formations is having a negative impact on current living conditions or is likely to cause negative impact in the future.

uprising2 · 22-01-2011 07:00PM

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

this guy did some tests, take a look at this.

EDIT:

From a repost of a post:

Anybody here ever hear of this patent?

" One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude."
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186

This patent was granted to Hughes Aircraft Company under the umbrella of GM Hughes Electronics, until GM sold its assets to Raytheon in 1997.

Raytheon is a major American defense contractor and industrial corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in defense systems and defense and commercial electronics.
It was previously involved in corporate and special-mission aircraft until early 2007.

Maybe you should look into Project Cloverleaf also.

There's plenty of evidence this patent hasn't amounted to nothing.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 07:04PM

King Mob wrote: »

But that's the thing, you don't seem to be asking questions at all.
You only seem to have an assumption that the government is up to something. Then you accept any and all evidence for this unqeustioningly and without checking the facts (as evidenced by the link you posted) then when you are provided with answers that don't involve massive conspiracies you either dismiss them out of hand or ignore entirely them without bothering to check them out.

I'm not asking you to stop asking questions. I just suggesting you should ask more.

Again show me where i posted the government are up to anything and i said it was fact?
Back on the link i posted again and that is the only thing you and your side kick monty have to have a go at people via internet.
You were at least before somewhat not preaching now you are so i have nothing further to say to you.

I would like to ask why are you so hell bent on posting on CT forums if you dont believe any of them.
But seen as not allowed i wont.

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 07:15PM

hawkwind23 wrote: »

standard forum digression.
try to stick to the subject matter rather than the immature bickering.

Agreed. You will notice that certain posters have no information or no willingness to address arguments.

hawkwind23 wrote: »

would this not therefore suggest that in the dublin area we have confirmation of heavy air traffic having an impact on cloud formation.

would this not further warrent official confirmation that cloud formations due to contrails will have no lasting effect on the enviroment?

if clouds are being formed due to excessive air traffic then surely this would have an impact on climate and temperatures etc.

I'm pretty sure these things do have an impact on cloud formation and/or the overall level of cloud formation. The idea is that the contrails bounce a lot of heat back out of the atmosphere by raising the planet's albedo.

hawkwind23 wrote: »

so for this reason i welcome this thread.
for the contrails to be mentioned on rte news then people have been asking about it.
i would like people to keep asking and maybe we can get an official government response to wether artifical cloud formations is having a negative impact on current living conditions or is likely to cause negative impact in the future.

I certainly don't see any harm in that, but you do appreciate that those who are convinced there is something going on will seize on these 'government denials' as positive proof that there are chemtrails. :rolleyes:

*melanie* · 22-01-2011 07:16PM

I love how my posting of my picture this morning was ignored.

Well? Is that amount of 'contrails' normal?? I really don't think so. Keep in mind, that was only what was in the view of the camera. There was many many more surrounding too.

On another note, I have never seen such trolls on one topic. I think we may even have found the king of all trolls here.

Wow.

Don't like the topic? Go to another then. Don't want to go, because you like to pick on people?
That my friends = troll.

Have a wonderful evening. Keep it friendly eh?

Peace.

uprising2 · 22-01-2011 07:18PM

Katarina Mademann says that her research validates that barium and aluminum are the main chemicals being discharged by certain aircraft. She shares that in 2001, Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich tried to have chemtrails banned by an act of congress but he was pressured by the government to modify the initial draft of House Bill 2977 under the Space Preservation Act to remove mention of chemtrails.

Read more at Suite101: Chemtrails: International Symposium in Belgium a Success http://www.suite101.com/content/chemtrails-international-symposium-in-belgium-a-success-a243820#ixzz1BmymxjuZ

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html

http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/docs/vision_2020.pdf

caseyann · 22-01-2011 07:18PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Better off putting them on ignore caseyann and discuss it with people in "the rarefeid world of CTers". :rolleyes:

I would much prefer if others would put me on ignore and that will make them feel better

I dont know why there is an increasing interest in the alleged chemtrails all over the world.Has to be said for something when people are looking up and thinking why.That is in fact a important question and what effect be it whether contrails or chemtrails on purpose or not is having an effect or not on the planet.

5uspect · 22-01-2011 07:21PM

King Mob wrote: »

So then if you're "not suggesting anything" and saying that you'd "be a fool to try and tell me one way or another", how can you say with any confidence that the trail not coming from wing is a sign that it is not a condensation trail?

Not to mention that the wing tip vortices fold the air and consequently the contrails neatly into the centre of the aircraft's wake.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/0/1/1091105.jpg

(too big to post)

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 07:22PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The auxiliary power unit is basically a windmill that powers the electronics on the plane, it doesn't propel the plane at all (in fact it slows it down). So it doesn't produce any exhaust at all.

So my points if you'd like to address them:
Auxillary power system is just a windmill and produces no gasses

Trails may be intermittent due to level of engine power, angle of attack of wings, varying levels of vapour in the atmosphere.

How can you tell planes are in same airspace when looking up from the ground?

How do you know that the flights are not commercial (or private passenger, or freight delivery) flights?

Planefinder does not show all planes - it might not even show most planes.

Edit: by the way, on point 2 those are only guesses, I'm no expert on that stuff and as usual you will get much better answers on the aviation board, as long as we can all agree that they are not another branch of the conspiracy...

1. Ok the reason I mentioned the auxilary power was another member tried to say maybye thats why I could trails coming from the tail I knew there was no reason for trails to be coming from there I was simply trying to offer a worst case scenario but now you have given a second opinion that there is no reason for trails to come from the tail.
2. The plan was gaining altitude which would suggest increased engine power which would suggest trail constant yet following a straight line the trail was intermittent by which I mean short bursts and when the plane reached an existing trail it stopped again
3. What I meant by the same air space was when you look up and see two planes in your field of vision without turning your head. Yes I know one could be higher or further away than the other but they were the same size and one was crossing through the trail left by the other
4. I dont know and I should not have been so quick to call that one but I do know that I have been driving that same route for over ten years and have never seen 4 not even 1 plane make these odd looking patternsso if anyone can find out for certain if there was supposed to be any planes private or otherwise flying over Kilcullen/Athy area today between 2pm and 3pm. I know someone has already told me its very easy to find out exactly what planes are flying where well now its yuor time to shine.
5. thanks for the heads up plane finder is useless can someone find a better way of finding out the origin and purpose of the planes mentioned above and while were on the topic whatabout the ones over Tallaght and south Dublin yasterday between 12pm and 5pm I know there was more over north Dublin but there is little point looking these as its too close to the airport and will only waste time.
Thanks monty for allowing each point to be addressed and not just focusing on one thing

22-01-2011 07:27PM

caseyann wrote: »

Again show me where i posted the government are up to anything and i said it was fact?
Back on the link i posted again and that is the only thing you and your side kick monty have to have a go at people via internet.
You were at least before somewhat not preaching now you are so i have nothing further to say to you.

I would like to ask why are you so hell bent on posting on CT forums if you dont believe any of them.
But seen as not allowed i wont.

I post here because I'm interested in Conspiracy Theories I just don't believe them as few make sense and even fewer have anything to support them.

But if you aren't interested in an opposing view to yours then by all means ignore any questions.
Cause that's what "asking questions" is all about, right?

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 07:36PM

No problem at all

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

1. Ok the reason I mentioned the auxilary power was another member tried to say maybye thats why I could trails coming from the tail I knew there was no reason for trails to be coming from there I was simply trying to offer a worst case scenario but now you have given a second opinion that there is no reason for trails to come from the tail.

Yup, you can rule out that one for sure - although there are a few planes with actual engines in the tail like the MD-11.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

2. The plan was gaining altitude which would suggest increased engine power which would suggest trail constant yet following a straight line the trail was intermittent by which I mean short bursts and when the plane reached an existing trail it stopped again

It's hard to make an intelligent comment really without seeing what you saw, but bear in mind it is likely that the levels of vapour in the air will vary at different heights.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

3. What I meant by the same air space was when you look up and see two planes in your field of vision without turning your head. Yes I know one could be higher or further away than the other but they were the same size and one was crossing through the trail left by the other

Same as above, hard to comment - but bear in mind you could have two planes that look absolutely side by side (never mind in your field of view) and be travelling safely 2000ft apart in altitude.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

4. I dont know and I should not have been so quick to call that one but I do know that I have been driving that same route for over ten years and have never seen 4 not even 1 plane make these odd looking patternsso if anyone can find out for certain if there was supposed to be any planes private or otherwise flying over Kilcullen/Athy area today between 2pm and 3pm. I know someone has already told me its very easy to find out exactly what planes are flying where well now its yuor time to shine.

To the aviation board for info? Surely they will know who you need to talk to?

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

5. thanks for the heads up plane finder is useless can someone find a better way of finding out the origin and purpose of the planes mentioned above and while were on the topic whatabout the ones over Tallaght and south Dublin yasterday between 12pm and 5pm I know there was more over north Dublin but there is little point looking these as its too close to the airport and will only waste time.

Sorry, I don't have any better sources of info.

I've said it a few times on this thread - for good info on the practicalities of aviation, ask on the aviation board (re. levels of traffic, routes, behaviour of planes, flight levels, atmospheric effects etc).

When you rule out all the stuff you can explain that way, you will be left with the nub of the problem that needs to be attacked, and can focus all your energy on that, rather than chasing around in circles about stuff that's explainable by asking the right people.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 07:37PM

King Mob wrote: »

I post here because I'm interested in Conspiracy Theories I just don't believe them as few make sense and even fewer have anything to support them.

But if you aren't interested in an opposing view to yours then by all means ignore any questions.
Cause that's what "asking questions" is all about, right?

So you are waiting for the solid proof?
Well i dont have a problem with opposing views even though i havent argued much against them,as i havent tried to say i have actual fact its happening. Just from what i have been seeing and some of the posts on here that also show reasonable reason to question.But i am still questioning because it is in my nature to ask not believe everything i am told from people who dont believe and also who havent tested to infact say there is nothing odd in the air.
I mean what do we do take a plane and fly behind them stick a beaker out the window and catch the trails in mid air?

Brown Bomber · 22-01-2011 07:45PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Do you have anything to say about chemtrails at all? Or are you just here to argue?

Yeah. I think it is outlandish tbh, doesn't mean I'm going to insult anybody who doesn't.

Also, I find it interesting that people who have no interest at all generally are actually taking notice all at the same time. There must be something to do this. People aren't stupid, if something doesn't feel right generally something isn't right.

22-01-2011 07:49PM

caseyann wrote: »

So you are waiting for the solid proof?

No just evidence that is verifiable and makes sense.
It is not forthcoming apparently.

caseyann wrote: »

Well i dont have a problem with opposing views even though i havent argued much against them,as i havent tried to say i have actual fact its happening. Just from what i have been seeing and some of the posts on here that also show reasonable reason to question.

So then why aren't you questioning those reasons to question things?
What makes them so convincing?

caseyann wrote: »

But i am still questioning because it is in my nature to ask not believe everything i am told from people who dont believe and also who havent tested to infact say there is nothing odd in there air.

But we're not telling anyone anything. We're simply showing holes (there's a lot of them) in the evidence and arguments of people who are actually telling you what to believe, then we're asking questions about these holes.
We're then saying based on the lack of evidence and bad reason displayed that there is as much reason to believe the government is putting stuff into the air through chemtrails as there is to believe that pixies are putting their dust into the air.

caseyann wrote: »

I mean what do we do take a plane and fly behind them stick a beaker out the window and catch the trails in mid air?

Or you could find one of these millions of planes or pilots involved in this massive conspiracy. Or you can use some basic equipment to send up a weather balloon to analysis it.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 07:56PM

King Mob wrote: »

No just evidence that is verifiable and makes sense.
It is not forthcoming apparently.

So then why aren't you questioning those reasons to question things?
What makes them so convincing?

But we're not telling anyone anything. We're simply showing holes (there's a lot of them) in the evidence and arguments of people who are actually telling you what to believe, then we're asking questions about these holes.
We're then saying based on the lack of evidence and bad reason displayed that there is as much reason to believe the government is putting stuff into the air through chemtrails as there is to believe that pixies are putting their dust into the air.

Or you could find one of these millions of planes or pilots involved in this massive conspiracy. Or you can use some basic equipment to send up a weather balloon to analysis it.

I have a life and no time to do that.

Well if someone has a belief pixies are doing it let them off not your problem and not harming anyone are they.

I am questioning it because i have seen many a day like the days we had recently and i have never seen any such flight patterns or trails behind planes.
And if people dont always keep questioning and take the excuses that are being given out in so many different situations.What would the governments get away with? Yeah i wouldnt like to know a world when people are doubting the answers that also have no solid back up proof and turn a blind eye.
Just imagine if chemtrails are real and people went along their merry way and ignored everything brushing it off because some people claim they know for a fact its not happening and it was,would happen.

Yitzhak Rabin · 22-01-2011 07:58PM

For god sake! What a bloody mess of a thread.

MontyBurnz banned for a week for insulting other users.

Everyone else from now on:

-No more accusations of trollery! Report the post!
-No more bitching about insulting posts! Report the post!
-No more grammar nazism, its neither funny nor smart. It makes you look like a dick.
-No more insulting other users.
-No more suggesting posters should not post here.

If you do report the post leave it at that, no need to respond on thread as well.

This thread is for discussion of chem/contrails, not for petty squabbles.

22-01-2011 08:07PM

caseyann wrote: »

Well if someone has a belief pixies are doing it let them off not your problem and not harming anyone are they.

But I'm not forbidding anyone from believing in any nonsense they like, I'm just discussing it on a public discussion forum.
Unless of course I can turn this silly fallacy around and accuse you to trying to stifle my freedom of speech.

caseyann wrote: »

I am questioning it because i have seen many a day like the days we had recently and i have never seen any such flight patterns or trails behind planes.

But that's just silly frankly. Are you saying that contrails are a new phenomenon?

caseyann wrote: »

And if people dont always keep questioning and take the excuses that are being given out in so many different situations.What would the governments get away with? Yeah i wouldnt like to know a world when people are doubting the answers that also have no solid back up proof and turn a blind eye.

And isn't it possible that there are people out there on the internet spreading false theories either to promote their goods or because they're simply wrong?
Isn't just as important to question the conspiracy theories?
What would the cranks and scammers be able to get away with then?

caseyann wrote: »

Just imagine if chemtrails are real and people went along their merry way and ignored everything brushing it off because some people claim they know for a fact its not happening and it was,would happen.

But how can you say this, yet also say this:

caseyann wrote: »

I have a life and no time to do that.

If you actually thought chemtrails were in any way plausible, how could you not try to do tests? Otherwise you'd just be doing what you are accusing others of, turning a blind eye to what the government are doing.

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 08:31PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No problem at all

Yup, you can rule out that one for sure - although there are a few planes with actual engines in the tail like the MD-11.
SO CAN WE SAY THEN THAT THEY WERE DEFINITELY NOT CONTRAILS COMING FROM THE TAIL AND MUST BE SOME OTHER TYPE OF TRAIL
It's hard to make an intelligent comment really without seeing what you saw, but bear in mind it is likely that the levels of vapour in the air will vary at different heights. OK ILL ACCEPT THAT AS ITS AN INTELLIGENT COMMENT IN ITSELF.

Same as above, hard to comment - but bear in mind you could have two planes that look absolutely side by side (never mind in your field of view) and be travelling safely 2000ft apart in altitude. BUT AT 2000FT APART THERE WILL BE A CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF THE CRAFT ALSO THEY WERE NOT SIDE BY SIDE ONE WAS FOLLOWING THE OTHER ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COURSE(ANGLE) AND CROSSED THE PATH OF THE PREVIOUS TRAIL THEN THE TRAIL STOPPED BUT THE PLANE CONTINUED

To the aviation board for info? Surely they will know who you need to talk to?

Sorry, I don't have any better sources of info.

I've said it a few times on this thread - for good info on the practicalities of aviation, ask on the aviation board (re. levels of traffic, routes, behaviour of planes, flight levels, atmospheric effects etc).

When you rule out all the stuff you can explain that way, you will be left with the nub of the problem that needs to be attacked, and can focus all your energy on that, rather than chasing around in circles about stuff that's explainable by asking the right people.

SORRY BUT LETS SAY FOR A MINUTE THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS TRUE THE AVATION BOARD ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE OUT ANY INFORMATION THAT WILL VERIFY THIS THATS ASSUMING THEY EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT OR MORE TO THE POINT THE GUY WHO ANSWERS THE FONES OR REPLIES TO MAILS DEFINATLY DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT IT AND LIKE YOU SAID EARLIER THEY COULD BE PRIVATE JETS WHICH THE AVATION BOARD CAN JUST SAY THEY WERE UNAWARE OF ANY PLANES OPERATING IN THAT AREA THATS WHY A NEED TO KNOW BASIS WORKS SO WELL IN THESE FIRMS. I KNOW IT WILL LEAD TO A DEAD END OTHERWISE THIS WHOLE THING WOULD BE SOLVED ALREADY THATS WHY I ASKED "WHOMEVER" TOLD ME ALL THIS INFO WAS THERE FOR THE TAKING, TO ACQUIRE IT FOR ME BUT IT SEEMS THAT PERSON HAS STILL COME UP WITH NOTHING

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 08:54PM

King Mob wrote: »

No just evidence that is verifiable and makes sense.

Or you could find one of these millions of planes or pilots involved in this massive conspiracy. Or you can use some basic equipment to send up a weather balloon to analysis it.

Sorry to butt in but if someone did send up a weather balloon and the results came back to be high levels of heavy metals anything that was not just condensation what would you say to this. Would you accept that all the trails consist of the same maerials or argue that that was a freak trail and the only way to know for sure is send up a million balloons into a million different. why dont you send up a balloon and prove us all wrong we will all be happy to be wrong
please tell me your views on this link too
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

22-01-2011 09:03PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Sorry to butt in but if someone did send up a weather balloon and the results came back to be high levels of heavy metals anything that was not just condensation what would you say to this.

Who? When? Where? And how do you know they are telling the truth?

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Would you accept that all the trails consist of the same maerials or argue that that was a freak trail and the only way to know for sure is send up a million balloons into a million different.

Well no I wouldn't accept it, because I don't know which experiment you're referring to.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

why dont you send up a balloon and prove us all wrong we will all be happy to be wrong

Because I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of proof rests on the people making the claim that there is chemicals being sprayed.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

please tell me your views on this link too
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

It's a site about a government science studying the effect on aerosals in the atmosphere on climate change. Here aerosals mean any kind of vapour in the air, particularly clouds.
What do you think this proves exactly?

MeteoritesEire · 22-01-2011 09:10PM

forgive me for not reading thru all 42 pages of this thread but I'd like to point out a website that lets you track commercial flights.I know which jets are flying over my house in Donegal.I think chemtrails are likely just ordinary contrails in various different conditions
http://www.flightaware.com

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 09:31PM

King Mob wrote: »

Who? When? Where? And how do you know they are telling the truth?

Well no I wouldn't accept it, because I don't know which experiment you're referring to.

Because I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of proof rests on the people making the claim that there is chemicals being sprayed.

It's a site about a government science studying the effect on aerosals in the atmosphere on climate change. Here aerosals mean any kind of vapour in the air, particularly clouds.
What do you think this proves exactly?

I said IF IF IF IF IF IF IF someone sent up a balloon and got results would you still argue that this only proves one trail was not condensation
I was referring to the balloon experiment that you were on about
The burden lies wit the human race as a whole dont think you will be exempt from from anything just because you didnt believe so back to question 1 if there was proof from one weather balloon that a specific trail was not just condensation and exhaust fume what would you say to that
FINALLY theres no way you read the full article on that link so dont just send back a piece from the article. what it proves is that weather manipulation or modification is real and. Would you like to find out the truth or would you prefer we all just decided to forget about what we saw in the sky and tell each other its all ok. Have you ever witnessed excessive con trails or criss cross formations in the sky.

22-01-2011 09:47PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

I said IF IF IF IF IF IF IF someone sent up a balloon and got results would you still argue that this only proves one trail was not condensation
I was referring to the balloon experiment that you were on about

My bad. Thought you said someone had already done so.

If it was only one experiment done once, then yea basic science would require that I withhold judgement until more tests where done.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

The burden lies wit the human race as a whole dont think you will be exempt from from anything just because you didnt believe so back to question 1 if there was proof from one weather balloon that a specific trail was not just condensation and exhaust fume what would you say to that

Then in that case, if you are to hold yourself to the standard you'd like to hold me to, you must go out and do this experiment yourself to disprove any and all nonsensical things I claim is up there, like pixie dust. Sounds fair right?

The reason I feel no need to do the experiment is because there is nothing to convince me there's anything there in the first place.
The believers however are claiming that there is something up there.

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

FINALLY theres no way you read the full article on that link so dont just send back a piece from the article. what it proves is that weather manipulation or modification is real and.

Well no it doesn't, the site makes references to natural phenomenon. As far as I saw there was nothing there about weather medication or chemtrails.

But as has been pointed out many times here, there are tons of examples of actual weather modification, none of which are secret.

But lets assume that the site said what you'd like it to say, that chemtrails are a type of weather modification.
After taking so much care to prevent a single person of the hundreds of thousands involved from speaking out and making sure that no one ever say any of the spraying planes on the ground and bribing flight tracking sites to keep the planes hidden, why in the world would they let the entire game slip on a government controlled website?

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Would you like to find out the truth or would you prefer we all just decided to forget about what we saw in the sky and tell each other its all ok. Have you ever witnessed excessive con trails or criss cross formations in the sky.

Yes I have. What's your point?

CHEMTRAILS

Comments