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

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

If you think discussing the validity of the existence of chemtrails or of a suitable delivery method for them has no bearing on a thread about what effect chemtrails are having on the climate then it just shows you haven't thought much about it at all. If they don't exist or cannot be delivered they cannot affect the climate can they.

You have shown two delivery methods for SRM devices, one which produces large thick clouds from seawater spraying, and one which proposes releasing tiny particulate matter from aircraft. Neither of these results in chemtrails, maybe saying chemtrails instead of SRM in the first post was your error? Chemtrails are just misidentified contrails with no basis for their existence, SRM is a serious scientific proposal, they are not the same.

I tried having a reasonable discussion with you several times and my last response went ignored four pages ago.

Also to abuse members the way you have and then post complaining about abuse is supremely ironic, well done.

Actually the entire thread appears to be like this...

"Global dimming maybe caused by chemtrails...

Chemtrails... Nope clouds...

Yep seeded clouds, by chemtrails...

Nope clouds cause warming not cooling..

No they don't,

Yes they do

No they don't

Yes they do..

Prove it!

Come one Proooofff!!!

Look at this..

That doesn't exist..

Yes it does

No it doesn't

Stop contradicting..

I'm not

Yes you are

I'm not

for god sake let's get back on topic

it is on topic

No it isn't

Yes it is!"

BORING!!!!!!

Korg!

reply to post by Korg Trinity


See how you respond to thoughtful posts that include points you can reply to? And you wonder why the thread went down the toilet.

My take on how the thread has largely gone is more like

"I think chemtrails are affecting the climate"

"Why do you think chemtrails are even real?"

"I know contrails can't spread"

"But this evidence shows they can"

"Oh, ok, they can sometimes but mine are still chemtrails that are affecting the climate"

"Why"

"I don't want to think about that, just talk about the climate"

"But to affect the climate they have to be there"

"People like you have an agenda to hide something"

"Trying again, let's talk about the chemtrails"

"You people are a disgrace"

"There are reasons why I say chemtrails don't exist"

"You liars are hiding something"

"So let's talk about chemtrails and how they are formed"

" You lot just try to brainwash people, the abuse in this thread is disgusting"

It's all YOU.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Scientists have found the Earth is cooling. The chemtrails also serve the purpose of eugenics... hence they are filled with poison lithium salts.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder


I believe that chemtrails also serve to greatly increase fear, ignorance and paranoia because they are filled with lies and extravagant baseless claims.

reply to post by waynos

I know this must be SOOOO top secret, but if you go to youtube and type in chem trails there are dozens of documentaries on them. It would take such an impressive researcher to figure out what's in the chem-trails, maybe even a genius.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder


Dozens of documentaries, or dozens of speculative guesses, if it's sooooooo secret, how can you tell?

Forgot to add, to tell what's in a chemtrail one must first find one. How does one do that?

reply to post by waynos

In California how could one NOT see one? I've been watching them since I was little. About 10 ears ago they started to find mass crop damages due to them.

The answers are in the documentaries so I can't ruin it for you. If you want the knowledge you'll have to watch them yourselves. Many scientists have already done the research, it's up to you open your ears and receive their message.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder


I have seen What in the World are They Spraying and Why in the World are they Spraying. These are generally held to be the main ones but the claims in them have all been shown to be as realistic as a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Do you know of any better ones?

StopThaZionistWorldOrder
reply to post by waynos

 

In California how could one NOT see one? I've been watching them since I was little.

I'm not in California so I cannot comment on that, but how do you know you were watching chemtrails and not contrails?

reply to post by waynos


At the time I didn't. But once I watched the above documentary, I remembered how they would expand and cover the entire sky in a cloud cover.


[Snip]

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder


Oh dear, you just made yourself look like a prize tin foil hat wearer with that last comment. You go ahead and keep believing those baseless unfounded internet claims then.

Yeah, if it's in a video, it must be true, way to go genius.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=

And contrails have been recorded to expand and create cloud cover since World War Two when high altitude Recconaisence flights caused the phenomena fairly regularly with other isolated reports going back even further.

StopThaZionistWorldOrder

It would take such an impressive researcher to figure out what's in the chem-trails, maybe even a genius.

Not really. It would take about 10% of what they claimed to have spent on 'What In The World...' to find out exactly what is in the trails.

reply to post by waynos


Just watch the documentary you jack the EPA does tests. She took information from many scientific sources.

It doesn't take a brain to realize that con trails don't create a cloud cover over the whole sky in front of your eyes.

Arsenic, lead, iron, lithium, calcium, barium, aluminum, and others

They graphed every piece of data, she never recanted anything. Why am I arguing with someone from the UK LOL. What a waste of time.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder


I saw it years ago. She also subsequently admitted that there was NO real evidence for chemtrails, but I guess you missed that one.

Duh

www.abovetopsecret.com...

StopThaZionistWorldOrder

It doesn't take a brain to realize that con trails don't create a cloud cover over the whole sky in front of your eyes.

It does take a brain however to realise that it's impossible for any plane to lift sufficient chemicals to cover the whole sky in front of your eyes.

StopThaZionistWorldOrder
reply to post by waynos

 

It doesn't take a brain to realize that con trails don't create a cloud cover over the whole sky in front of your eyes.

You are right, it doesn't take a brain to come out with nonsense like that. But it DOES take a brain to understand how contrails can do that and to understand why a plane cannot make it happen By simply spraying material into the air.

I'm letting your infantile goading pass, you either address the discussion or continue to be a wanker, it's up to you.

mrthumpy

StopThaZionistWorldOrder

It doesn't take a brain to realize that con trails don't create a cloud cover over the whole sky in front of your eyes.

It does take a brain however to realise that it's impossible for any plane to lift sufficient chemicals to cover the whole sky in front of your eyes.

rEALLY??

Could you please give me the active ingredients along with their masses and active concentration dispersal cone and half life....

Once you have this data I will calculate how much of the stuff can be lifted by say a 747 size plane.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Well if we look at a normal contrail a 747 burns about 10 tonnes of fuel an hour which will produce about 14 tonnes of water per hour. Then if we take into account the fact that persistent contrails can contain about 10000x the volume of water introduced by the engine exhaust that's 140000 tonnes of water in a contrail around 550 miles long. If we say it takes about 15 minutes to cross the sky then a visible contrail from horizon to horizon would contain about 35000 tonnes of water. Obviously for a trail of similar optical thickness consisting of chemicals sprayed from a plane that weight would have to be scaled up depending on the chemical. For aluminium this would be 2.7x

I think I've got my maths right but I'm happy to be corrected.

mrthumpy
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Well if we look at a normal contrail a 747 burns about 10 tonnes of fuel an hour which will produce about 14 tonnes of water per hour. Then if we take into account the fact that persistent contrails can contain about 10000x the volume of water introduced by the engine exhaust that's 140000 tonnes of water in a contrail around 550 miles long. If we say it takes about 15 minutes to cross the sky then a visible contrail from horizon to horizon would contain about 35000 tonnes of water. Obviously for a trail of similar optical thickness consisting of chemicals sprayed from a plane that weight would have to be scaled up depending on the chemical. For aluminium this would be 2.7x

I think I've got my maths right but I'm happy to be corrected.

Really?? LoL

Your calculations are flawed...

You're missing key variables such as the active concentration of the chemical or particulate... if say you only need a particulate count of say 5 parts per million for the process to be effective... a very small amount of particulate would be required.

Please review the whole video below...



Korg.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder


I come into California a lot lately and all I see are contrails.