I think I know What Chemtrails are... and it's worse than you can imagine!

AndyMayhew

Korg Trinity

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Hold on mush, After I posted a reply to exiteternity explaining my position regarding why I dont believe people who think they are seeing chemtrails actually are, YOU responded with a lengthy piece that addressed NOT ONE point I made, but instead called into question my character and motives for posting here. Lets be honest about who chucked the doll out of the pram.

Yet again we see you going on a personal attack because you cannot provide a response to the points raised.

Thus far I have not read anything regarding the actual subject matter, Your position is clear... you oppose me... I get it... I really do...

You haven't read any of the hundreds of papers published over the past 50 years about contrails?

And then you wonder why we question whether you may be wrong?

This is exactly what I'm talking about... you have taken my words and twisted them out of context... The comment I made was about someone whom thus far has not offered any discussion about the subject matter...

You made it sounds as if I had said I have not read ever any material ON the subject matter.

This thread is now becoming boring... since none of the people posting actually want to address and discuss the actual subject matter... instead just seek to discredit and annoy....

This is not a debate it's a debacle!!!!

Talk about a derail!!!

Korg.

Hey Korg, have you found those contradictions yet that you say I have had several times?

I am still waiting....or are you having a hard time finding them?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


You have yet to prove that chemtrails even exist, which is the first step. You've gone from "global warming has slowed down" to "chemtrails!" without even showing that chemtrails are real to begin with.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


You see, even when I posted a direct discussion point to something you posted, you choose instead to respond to a post you perceive as hostile and proceed to moan that people aren't discussing the subject. you never learn.

As to why we are discussing the chemtrail part of your theory, it is central to your proposal. Here's what I said in another thread, maybe consider the dynamics of this for a moment before posting a knee jerk dismissal;

I know it's not a deliberate chemtrail spray because the contrail is created by an engine delivering upwards of 60,000lbs thrust (more on larger aircraft up to 100,000lbs) containing a higher water content than the amount of fuel that was burned to create it PLUS the water content of the ambient air passed through the fan which is 8 to 10 times greater volume than the jet exhaust itself. Only someone COMPLETELY in the dark about aircraft can imagine an aircraft carrying a spray this powerful (let alone four of them) and sufficient volume of material to create an identical looking but 'fake' contrail from horizon to horizon. Nobody who is completely in the dark about the subject is ever going to sound credible because they cannot.

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

You see, even when I posted a direct discussion point to something you posted, you choose instead to respond to a post you perceive as hostile and proceed to moan that people aren't discussing the subject. you never learn.

As to why we are discussing the chemtrail part of your theory, it is central to your proposal. Here's what I said in another thread, maybe consider the dynamics of this for a moment before posting a knee jerk dismissal;

I know it's not a deliberate chemtrail spray because the contrail is created by an engine delivering upwards of 60,000lbs thrust (more on larger aircraft up to 100,000lbs) containing a higher water content than the amount of fuel that was burned to create it PLUS the water content of the ambient air passed through the fan which is 8 to 10 times greater volume than the jet exhaust itself. Only someone COMPLETELY in the dark about aircraft can imagine an aircraft carrying a spray this powerful (let alone four of them) and sufficient volume of material to create an identical looking but 'fake' contrail from horizon to horizon. Nobody who is completely in the dark about the subject is ever going to sound credible because they cannot.

edit on 7-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Do you deny that there is a possibility that my theory could be correct?

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


The theory is all very well, but for the theory to translate to potential reality there needs to be a credible means of creating the required chemtrails, and that is totally lacking as per my previous post? So, because of that I would have to say yes.

I can see how it could be a possibility for the future however, just not an explanation for something already happening.

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

The theory is all very well, but for the theory to translate to potential reality there needs to be a credible means of creating the required chemtrails, and that is totally lacking as per my previous post? So, because of that I would have to say yes.

I can see how it could be a possibility for the future however, just not an explanation for something already happening.

edit on 7-10-2013 by waynos because: Rephrased same point

You mean like this...

[US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database]

A method is described for reducing atmospheric or global warming resulting from the presence of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, i.e., from the greenhouse effect. Such gases are relatively transparent to sunshine, but absorb strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth. The method incudes the step of seeding the layer of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere with particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity. Such materials include Welsbach materials and the oxides of metals which have high emissivity (and thus low reflectivities) in the visible and 8-12 micron infrared wavelength regions.

Korg....

The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth's stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers. The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.

Sure, all you need to do is show us which planes are flying at 10 kilometers and leaving a visible trail. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke up someone's backside. You really should read your sources. Understanding them is an even better idea.


.....Dude

network dude

The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth's stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers. The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.

Sure, all you need to do is show us which planes are flying at 10 kilometers and leaving a visible trail. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke up someone's backside. You really should read your sources. Understanding them is an even better idea.

edit on 7-10-2013 by network dude because: chemtrails are fantasy

.....Dude

edit on 7-10-2013 by network dude because: (no reason given)

Oh don't be so pedantic!

There are over 150 such patents... I will dig out the ones that relate DIRECTLY to chemtrails when I get chance.. right now I have more pressing matters to attend to!

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

There are over 150 such patents... I will dig out the ones that relate DIRECTLY to chemtrails when I get chance.. right now I have more pressing matters to attend to!

So because there are patents that proves chemtrails exist?

I hope finding those contradictions are part of the pressing matters because I am still waiting to see them.

You made the accusation now you are just dodging it, why?

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

There are over 150 such patents... I will dig out the ones that relate DIRECTLY to chemtrails when I get chance.. right now I have more pressing matters to attend to!

So because there are patents that proves chemtrails exist?

I hope finding those contradictions are part of the pressing matters because I am still waiting to see them.

You made the accusation now you are just dodging it, why?

Not what I said... it was a response to someone else's comment!

What is this a TAG team??

Korg..

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Not what I said... it was a response to someone else's comment!

And what I am not allowed to comment on it because it was a reply to someone else?

You still haven't addressed the accusation you made, why?

but you did say this...

I will dig out the ones that relate DIRECTLY to chemtrails when I get chance..

Which shows your equating patents with chemtrails that you said in your OP is being used to stop global warming or are you backing away from that assertion?

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Not what I said... it was a response to someone else's comment!

And what I am not allowed to comment on it because it was a reply to someone else?

You still haven't addressed the accusation you made, why?

but you did say this...

I will dig out the ones that relate DIRECTLY to chemtrails when I get chance..

Which shows your equating patents with chemtrails that you said in your OP is being used to stop global warming or are you backing away from that assertion?

edit on 7-10-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)

Not when you are taking a comment addressing what another has said and twist it to being something else, no your not!

What ever you think I am or am not doing is irrelivant. I posted what my thoughts are on a subject that clearly has caused quite a ruckas... MY error was believing that there were people out there that actually wanted to discuss the possibilities...

What this thread turned into was a complete shambles of a debate, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I did expect is to debate with people about the possibilities of the effects of global warming hidden by global dimming....

There were more than a few discussion avenues that could have been taken that would have made this thread an enjoyable experience for all...

In stead I think I have exposed how closed minded and arrogant people on ATS are.... frankly who the **** do you or any of the other that have attacked the thread aggressively think they are...

You have: -

A) No IDEA who I am or what I represent.
B) Total inability to address the core issues raised int he original thread.
C) Baited and twisted words out of context to attempt to discredit

Not someone I would give five seconds of my time to normally... Trust me you would be escorted well away from me if you acted as you have done here.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Not when you are taking a comment addressing what another has said and twist it to being something else, no your not!

Welcome to ATS, you do understand this is an open forum so I can reply to whomever I want and can comment on anyones reply to any other member.

Now show me where I twisted your comment to be something else?

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Not when you are taking a comment addressing what another has said and twist it to being something else, no your not!

Welcome to ATS, you do understand this is an open forum so I can reply to whomever I want and can comment on anyones reply to any other member.

Now show me where I twisted your comment to be something else?

edit on 7-10-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)

So it's perfectly all right since this is an open forum for you to take a reply I made to someone else's post and then relate that your own post... which had nothing to do with my response.

You wanted an example of how you have twisted my words... there it is.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

A) No IDEA who I am or what I represent.
B) Total inability to address the core issues raised int he original thread.
C) Baited and twisted words out of context to attempt to discredit

A) I don't care who you are as that isn't what this thread was about.
B) I have and you have side stepped me every step of the way
C) You still haven't shown me where I twisted your words, and how have I tried to discredit you?
Only the evidence you are trying to pass off as being real is what I will discredit.

Now let's talk about someone trying to discredit someone, as your the one who brought accusations upon me contradicting myself without any proof whatsoever, so do you still want to continue with that accusation without proof.

Just as you made claims about chemtrails in the OP that have been shown to be wrong.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

You wanted an example of how you have twisted my words... there it is.

Wow show me exactly where your words were twisted, because that is not even close.

Lets look at what you said shall we...

There are over 150 such patents... I will dig out the ones that relate DIRECTLY to chemtrails when I get chance..

and my reply to that...

So because there are patents that proves chemtrails exist?

And your next reply to that...

Not what I said... it was a response to someone else's comment!

my reply...

And what I am not allowed to comment on it because it was a reply to someone else?

now your reply...

Not when you are taking a comment addressing what another has said and twist it to being something else, no your not!

Okay I have yet to see where I twisted your words into anything. Yet another accusation you cannot prove.

Just as your claim chemtrails are being used to stop global warming or did I twist those words to?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


That patent is an example of what I was talking about, it talks about releasing microscopically small particles into the upper atmosphere (where 99.9% of aircraft do not fly) but offers no reason to suppose this would, in any way, resemble the photograph you used in your OP. THAT would require a volume of material no aircraft can carry. You are taking two unrelated things and jamming them together, two pieces from different jigsaws.

I made some posts on few pages back i thought was pretty good but got ignored by all

reply to post by exiteternity

I made some posts on few pages back i thought was pretty good but got ignored by all

Don't worry they weren't ignored, but the OP seems to like throwing accusations around that need to be addressed.

Don't sweat it that does happen sometimes in these chemtrail threads.