Shocking Annoucment about Chemtrails on MSM

reply to post by TheBassistant

These are what appear to be your answers to my question:
1):

I've never refused to acknowledge contrails are a possibility

2):

these trails that stay in the sky for hours, fanning out into a nasty haze that covers up the entire sky.

3):

I can see a trail being sprayed on the far northeast side of the city, and throughout the ENTIRE DAY watch it slowwwwwwlllly spread out

My responses to your answers:
1) Many "chemtrailers" DO deny the existence of contrails. I wasn't sure where you stood on this issue. Thank you for clearing it up. Was that an affirmation that what you photographed may have possibly been contrails?

2) In my 50+ years of intense sky watching, I have seen many, many, contrails do that very thing. It is NOT an occurence that is new. That was a HUGE problem for large formations of B-17s back in World War II while flying at higher altitudes.

3) This also is something contrails have been known to do for many, many, years. Do you feel that contrails are incapable of "slowwwwwwlllly " spreading out?

This is absolutely NOT the same question I asked you.:

What's normal & ordinary about them?

Since you seem to have your panties in such a wad over ProudBird not answering that question, I will:
Everything about the trails shown in your pictures makes them appear to be the "normal", everyday contrails that I have witnessed, on a daily basis, throughout my entire lifetime. There are just more of them, than there were years ago.

Regarding your post on page 15:
Your phone calls have absolutely nothing to do with validating the trails shown in your pictures. That is a totally seperate issue that demonstrates you are not alone in your beliefs about "chemtrails". What the hell is new about that?

In reponse to your last two quetions:

I find it most interesting the only responses I've received on my pictures are "those are just contrails" by ProudBird and now you're asking me the same question I asked ProudBird in response?

That is NOT a question! It IS an improperly punctuated statement that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Why do you guys always disappear when confronted and then another of your crew will pipe up in defense of the outed "debunker"?

I'm still here, and am happily awaiting your confrontation. Just remember, you're the one that made the claim that the trails shown in your pictures were, indeed, not normal contrails. It is up to you to demonstrate that to be a valid claim. You haven't done so yet, so please continue.

Let's go back to:

I do know the difference between a regular contrail (which I still see from time to time), and these trails that stay in the sky for hours,

Please state the "difference" that you purport to know. You haven't done so yet.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Human_Alien

Of course mine was an "emotional" response. You're the one that demanded that it come from the "HEART. Not copied and pasted from Google.". Why do you seem bothered by it?

And once again you're back to the "insult-tossing, poo-flinging":

You're not a shill because ATS would toss your sorry butt off this site I bet I bet I bet

That's a surprising comment, coming from you. Considering your demonstrated paranoia of all those that don't quite agree with you, why would you feel that ATS isn't part of a government coverup?

Back on topic, what did that post have to do with a "Shocking Annoucment about Chemtrails on MSM"?

I must have missed it.

See ya,
Milt

PS:
You are very welcome.

reply to post by Human_Alien

This world isn't what they want us to believe.

Perhaps not, but your lack of evidence, hostilities, insults, and intentional evasiveness, HAVE gone far in convincing me that the world is NOT as YOU say it is.

But if anyone still thinks: JFK, Oswald, Marilyn Monroe, RFK, Waco, Princess Diane and 9-11 (just to name only a FEW within my lifetime not to mention the bogus wars.......) all went down like the government and newspapers want us to believe

That only demonstrates your paranoia concerning the "government and newspapers" and myself, and has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs. Once again you have reached a conclusion based on a VERY vague assumption.

I simply have nothing further to discuss with you.

I will accept that as an admission of defeat.

I sincerely hope your life improves.

Cheers,
Milt

reply to post by ThirdRock69

Hey there "Little Einstein". I'm glad you made it back. I sincerely hope you feel better after your little temper tantrum yesterday. I got a big kick out of that, and am glad the Mods. saw fit to leave it posted. I hope you enjoyed the star I put on it.

Now to your current post...

Concerning:

You forgot the last step in the process or you left it out on purpose.

Combustion of the material.

I reckon that indicates how well you did in high school. And yes, I DID intentionally leave out the process of combustion.

I did so for the same reason that I intentionally left out: Nuclear Fission, Nuclear Fusion, and the "Effect of Nibiru"

Combustion, as with the other three processes that I just mentioned, are NOT part of the process of neutralizing an acid.

If you have information indicating that I am wrong, please provide it.

Do you think that neutralizing an acid makes it disappear?

Not at all! When proper proportions of a base and an acid are combined, different substances are created.

Would you like to demonstrate your exceptional intellect again?

By the way, my name is Milt, but please feel free to call me anything you would like too. I have developed pretty thick skin. ATS can do that for a fellow. I'm surpised it hasn't happened to you.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

I sincerely hope you feel better after your little temper tantrum yesterday.

I wrote a few comments in my post in CAPS for emphasis. I hardly would call that a temper tantrum.

When discussing this topic with boneheads and ego maniacs sometimes it is necessary to add that BOLD text .

So, I hope you realize your mistake now in presuming I was upset or "throwing a temper tantrum" in any way.

I'm glad you quoted that post though, because in the end I was correct and Phage was incorrect.

Combustion, as with the other three processes that I just mentioned, are NOT part of the process of neutralizing an acid.

Here is another example of your inept ability to comprehend the English language.

Your misguided, misconstrued attempt at twisting my words and changing the subject won't help you.

I never said combustion was a part of neutralizing an acid. That was a very poor interpretation of what I said.

I will assume your are either completely ignorant or you are being facetious.

What I said, to put it into layman terms you can comprehend, is when you put a material through the combustion process, whether it's acidity level has been neutralized or not, you will be left with a by product of combustion. Which is the final process that jet fuel goes through. We weren't talking about acid solutions. We were talking about jet fuel and the additives.

Don't try to change the subject now. You're only displaying your own ignorance by not just admitting your mistake.

reply to post by ThirdRock69

I wrote a few comments in my post in CAPS for emphasis. I hardly would call that a temper tantrum.

I don't care why you were using "CAPS". I have trouble with vision, so "CAPS" truly don't bother me. The sum total of your other post was a temper tantrum. Just as your current post appears to be another one.

When discussing this topic with boneheads and ego maniacs sometimes it is necessary to add that BOLD text .

Which am I, or am I both? Please ask me what I think you are.

So, I hope you realize your mistake now in presuming I was upset or "throwing a temper tantrum" in any way.

I don't feel I made a mistake! You seem to be proving me correct again. Thanks!

I'm glad you quoted that post though, because in the end I was correct and Phage was incorrect.

I disagree! Phage was correct!

I never said combustion was a part of neutralizing an acid. That was a very poor interpretation of what I said.

Sure you did!
With (In it's entire context):

OK, Ben Nye the science guy. You forgot the last step in the process or you left it out on purpose.

Combustion of the material.

In response to:

Don't you remember basic chemistry from high school?: Acids are neutralized by combining them with a base. If you did that you would no longer have dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid to add to your "Stadis-450", would you?

There was nothing wrong with my interpretation. I was talking about the neutralization of acids in the post you responded to. Not fuel. I can understand your frustration though. You seem to have trouble focusing.

I will assume your are either completely ignorant or you are being facetious.

Though your assumptions are obviously flawed, I really don't give a damn what you assume of me.

What I said, to put it into layman terms you can comprehend, is when you put a material through the combustion process, whether it's acidity level has been neutralized or not, you will be left with a by product of combustion.

How does that relate to any of my posts? Here's a clue: It doesn't! I feel you just made that up to help yourself feel better. I hope it worked.

Thanks for another great laugh. You earned another star from me.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

I disagree! Phage was correct!

No, he was not correct. If read the pages I linked to the studies showed that when VLF waves hit the ionosphere and electron precipitation occurs it affects atmospheric pressure which has a large impact on weather systems globally.

That's ok though I don't expect you to understand the relation and the dynamics involved. You've already shown your reading comprehension to be very poor.

There was nothing wrong with my interpretation. I was talking about the neutralization of acids in the post you responded to. Not fuel. I can understand your frustration though. You seem to have trouble focusing.

Did you forget the whole context of the discussion? Or I guess that doesn't matter to you?

The comments you made about neutralization of acid was in reference to the stadis-450 and dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid being additives in jet fuel. THE FINAL STEP IN THE PROCESS IS COMBUSTION OF THAT JET FUEL.

How does that relate to any of my posts? Here's a clue: It doesn't!

If you're now changing your story about the context of the discussion then whole entire post you made was completely off-topic.

So which is it?

Were you off topic and are denying the fact that your comment was about jet fuel additives?

Or are you trying to change you tune and play the same word games that all the other debunkers play when they don't want to admit when they are wrong?

You comment was about jet fuel and the additives. You said the chemcal additives change their properties (acidity level) when mixed.

My comment was that when you burn that jet fuel you are still left with the by-product of combustion ....sulfur and other particulates which are hygroscopic CCN and exaggerate the the creation of contrails and become the chemical clouds we know as chemtrails.

Deny it all you want, just know that you will be wrong again and displaying your own ignorance if you do.

reply to post by ThirdRock69

No, he was not correct. If read the pages I linked to the studies showed that when VLF waves hit the ionosphere and electron precipitation occurs it affects atmospheric pressure which has a large impact on weather systems globally.

No.
It is the effect of VLF radiation on the magnetosphere which causes electron precipitation. You have linked nothing which says that electron precipitation affects atmospheric pressure. You have linked a source which says there may be an effect on climate.

reply to post by Phage


Are you denying that when the ionosphere is weakened (lifted) by the VLF waves it cause electron precipitation to occur and that the portion of the atmosphere underneath that area will have lower atmospheric pressure.

Lower atmospheric pressure creates changes in the weather does it not?

reply to post by ThirdRock69

The ionosphere isn't weakened by VLF waves nor is it lifted by VLF waves. Electron precipitation is caused by neither of those effects. Electron precipitation is caused by the particles becoming coupled to and being guided by the magnetic field lines of the magnetosphere.

Weather occurs in the troposphere which reaches to an altitude of about 55,000 feet at its highest. Do you understand that at the altitudes being discussed there is no "atmosphere" to speak of?

nova.stanford.edu...

reply to post by Phage

It is the effect of VLF radiation on the magnetosphere which causes electron precipitation.

Here is the link again

Thermosphere - Ionosphere

RELATIVISTIC MICROBURSTS ƒ >1 MeV microbursts lasting

reply to post by ThirdRock69


You should make at least some effort to understand what the things you link mean.

typically observed at the outer edge of the radiation belt

In the first place those quotes are not talking about the effects of VLF radiation.
Second, what radiation belt could they be referring to, do you think? Where do you think that radiation belt might be located?

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

This world isn't what they want us to believe.

Perhaps not, but your lack of evidence, hostilities, insults, and intentional evasiveness, HAVE gone far in convincing me that the world is NOT as YOU say it is.

Fair enough.

But for clarification, I am not hostile. I'm passionate. Big difference.
Evasiveness? Nah. Been on that Merry-go-round enough times with you.

Convince you? Not my job. Let Obama convince you! I'm just an observer and poster

reply to post by BenReclused

My responses to your answers: 1) Many "chemtrailers" DO deny the existence of contrails. I wasn't sure where you stood on this issue. Thank you for clearing it up. Was that an affirmation that what you photographed may have possibly been contrails? 2) In my 50+ years of intense sky watching, I have seen many, many, contrails do that very thing. It is NOT an occurence that is new. That was a HUGE problem for large formations of B-17s back in World War II while flying at higher altitudes. 3) This also is something contrails have been known to do for many, many, years. Do you feel that contrails are incapable of "slowwwwwwlllly " spreading out?

1) It wasn't an affirmation of anything aside from the fact that I am well-aware of the existence of contrails. 2) If it's not a new occurrence, why would so many people be concerned about what they're seeing going on in the sky? So, it was common for large formations of military aircraft to leave behind these trails? Are you saying that's what is going on today? 3) I don't doubt contrails can spread out for a short amount of time before dissipating, but is it not true that one of the core tenets of your and all other debunkers philosophy on the matter, is that contrails are formed due to specific atmospheric temperatures? Are you telling me a contrail will persist for several hours, all while getting larger/wider and closer to Earth, and the temperature stays perfect no matter where it is for it to stay intact? I don't think so.

Since you seem to have your panties in such a wad over ProudBird not answering that question, I will: Everything about the trails shown in your pictures makes them appear to be the "normal", everyday contrails that I have witnessed, on a daily basis, throughout my entire lifetime. There are just more of them, than there were years ago.

I don't know where you're getting that my panties are in a wad, or that I even wear them to begin with, but I appreciate the dismissive tone thus far. How are my pictures normal? Since when is it normal for planes to leave grids in the sky like that? Or fly side by side spraying for the exact same distance? And don't tell me its air traffic routes or any other tired BS like that. I saw 5 planes in a V formation all spraying last Friday morning, is that normal?

Regarding your post on page 15: Your phone calls have absolutely nothing to do with validating the trails shown in your pictures. That is a totally seperate issue that demonstrates you are not alone in your beliefs about "chemtrails". What the hell is new about that?

Ah...so my personal experiences speaking with local authorities on the matter do nothing to validate what I saw with my own two eyes? That makes tons of sense. Especially since the first place I called was an answering machine taking messages for concerns/questions about the Strategic Ozone Layer Protection Program (still waiting for a call back), the woman at the Dept. of Environmental Justice backpedaled and redacted her statements after admitting there was a difference between chemtrails and contrails, the man at the Tx Dept. of Environmental Quality basically told me he knew in his gut that something was going on but couldn't say more about it, and the Lead Air Investigator at my local EPA office inferred I was an idiot and the 'persisting contrails' were likely due to a coldfront, but he wasn't really sure. Yeah....you're right, I'll just go with the official explanation rather than validating for myself by seeing and hearing it firsthand. My apologies.

I'm still here, and am happily awaiting your confrontation. Just remember, you're the one that made the claim that the trails shown in your pictures were, indeed, not normal contrails. It is up to you to demonstrate that to be a valid claim. You haven't done so yet, so please continue.

Yes, I did make the claim, and I demonstrated the validity of my claim by posting the pictures. They are right there when you're ready to actually look at them to see for yourself, that INDEED, they are not normal contrails.

Let's go back to: "I do know the difference between a regular contrail (which I still see from time to time), and these trails that stay in the sky for hours,"
Please state the "difference" that you purport to know. You haven't done so yet.

Lets see: Contrails do not: last all day, fan out and cover the entire sky in a blanket of grayish-white haze, give me stomachaches, headaches or close up my throat, nor do they draw attention from random passerby who don't know a damn thing about the chemtrail vs. contrail debate. Chemtrails do.

reply to post by Phage


This really is like banging ones head against a brick wall.

If you refuse to look at the big picture and want to focus your attention to just the manetosphere, without considering the interaction with the ionosphere and the thermosphere then it's quite impossible to move forward.

You did at least admit that it "may" affect the "climate".

This topic really isn't about HAARP, so for your egos sake I don't think it's proper to persist in this debate much further.

I demonstrated that the quote you took from the Case Orange report is not entirely goobedeegook as you so put it. There "may" be truth to the statement that we are arguing about.

For the sake of this thread let's move forward and agree to disagree.

reply to post by TheBassistant

Contrails do. And they have done so ever since aircraft could fly high enough to produce them.

From 1919:

The second German sighting occurred on May 9, 1919, when a pilot flying over Berlin at about 26,000 feet noticed the generation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. This stream eventually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. The pilot saw a similar phenomenon two days later.

www.accessmylibrary.com...


1944:

So an airplane at great heights leaves behind it, stretching for endless miles, a visible "wake" composed of ice particles so tiny that they do not fall as snow but remain suspended in the air.

Source


From 1968:

Daily, for example, hundreds of jet planes crisscross the nation or great parts of it, often leaving fluffy contrails of water vapor, manmade clouds, as a signature of their passage.

Some contrails soon dissapate. Others turn into or are soon followed by high cirruse clouds that can and do influence the earth's heat balance with the sun.

news.google.com...,2068835&dq=contrails+cirrus&hl=en




From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...


1972:

Then there is the matter of cloudiness. The familiar contrails often left by high-flying planes might persist for a long time under some conditions.

Source

reply to post by ThirdRock69

I demonstrated that the quote you took from the Case Orange report is not entirely goobedeegook as you so put it. There "may" be truth to the statement that we are arguing about.

No, you did no such thing.
You demonstrated that you don't understand what is wrong with the claims made...throughout the "Case Orange" document.

reply to post by Phage


Your first link doesnt work, your 4th link is a bunch of calculations that I'm not going to bother trying to decipher, and I appreciate you typing 'contrails' into google news and linking me to the results for your other 3 sources, it's certainly done quite a bit to open my eyes. Thank you Phage.

Just thought of another interesting theory about stadis 450... being that its used as an anti static agent to prevent the fuel from sparking/igniting, is it possible it will have the same effect once it leaves the jet engine and forms as a condensation cloud. If so, will it have an ability in reducing the electro static charge that build up it the clouds and are discharged as lightning?

Stadis 450

Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid is also used as an antistatic agent added to some distillate fuels, solvents, commercial jet fuels, and to the military JP-8 fuel. This is done to increase their electrical conductivity and dissipate static charges to reduce the fire hazard. It is a component of such additive named Stadis 450.

reply to post by TheBassistant


Thanks for pointing out the broken link. Here is a replacement
findarticles.com...

No comments about the behaviour of contrails as seen in the past?