Chemtrails in Pasco, WA.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: intrptr

Of course there is pollution from jets -

---

…but there is a great deal more ground level pollution from fuel burned by automobiles than by aircraft of all types and sizes.

That makes it okay then. Everyone is doing it. I'm confused, did you just agree with me and justify the pollution in one post?

a reply to: intrptr

You can't see the pollution in jet exhaust, you can only see trails of water ice. The exhaust pollution is there all the time the engines are running from departure to arrival, but the visible contrail will only be visible under conditions where water will freeze, therefore getting annoyed at contrails, and pointing at pictures of contrails while trying to call them chemtrails, is infantile. No different to being scared of the boogeyman when the lights are turned off.

a reply to: waynos

…and pointing at pictures of contrails while trying to call them chemtrails, is infantile.

Thats the disinformation, that is the endless argument, designed for anyone who takes the time to look (or google) the subject.

Its too confusing and buried under a ton of internet 'infantile' banter…

Never mind, go back to sleep.

For those interested in another aspect…

article

a reply to: intrptr

Is there any need for you to act like an obnoxious turd? Are you so incapable of elucidating your argument?

Who's asleep? The people who realise that chemtrails are bull, and a sideshow that deflects attention away from real issues (including pollution), or the ones forever declaiming chemtrails in the sky that can't physically exist? It just looks like you want to argue with everyone.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well show me proof they exist?

Proof of pollution? The topic never goes there, thanks to the disinfo specialists.

It can only revolve around the question of chem or con trails.

the discussion is about the white puffy lines that you see in the sky. Everyone here understands the exhaust emissions from an internal combustion engine.

Not sure what you want here. I believe you. I agree. I think we all do. But if you want to associate emissions with those white puffy lines, I'd really like to know how that works.

a reply to: reldra

You know I am certain they are chemtrails too. It is hysterical how so many just spout the same bs over and over.

a reply to: admirethedistance
Yes. This is not a new interest of mine. I have been studying this since 1998. Probably the first thing conspiratorial in nature I ever looked up on the internet , trying to figure out what they were. It led me , on dialup, to a lot of chemtrail sites.

a reply to: reldra

...And apparently you believed those sites...

originally posted by: Imagewerx

originally posted by: spav5

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: NewWorldDisorder

There's no such thing as chemtrails, except in the minds of the overly paranoid and the gullible. Those are, however, perfectly consistent with contrails.

Edit: The fact that it's a 'windy day' means nothing. It can be windy as hell at ground level, and perfectly calm a few thousand feet up.

There are no such things as chemtrails? What do they call it when they dump chemicals from a plane and it leaves behind a trail? What is that called? I don't believe this is a chemtrail but no sensible person would claim that they don't exist.

It's called crop dusting if done at just above hedge height,or the perfectly legal and known about for a very long time cloud seeding,the latter only done into big fluffy cumulo nimbus clouds though.Or if you were present in the Vietnam war you might have seen aircraft spraying stuff like agent orange,this is called chemical warfare.

Why would they be crop dusting or cloud seeding all over my suburban neighborhood? The US government has dispersed poisons and bacteria into the air for decades. But call it a chemtrail and suddenly one is being silly.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Ok, please explain how it is possible for an aircraft with a MTOW of 400 tons (a 747, the largest aircraft in service in the U.S.) of which 205 tons is the disposable load (includes fuel, crew and passengers and their luggage too) manages to spray a contrail which will weigh more that the MTOW of the aircraft for every 100km travelled?

When you've answered that, also give an explanation, that does not include the nucleation and freezing of water vapour, as to how a trail can spread out into a sheet of cloud without becoming so thin it's invisible, or even any thinner at all?

These are the two biggest, but most basic BS errors in chemtrails theory.

a reply to: reldra

They're not. The only thing over your suburban neighborhood is ordinary contrails.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: reldra

...And apparently you believed those sites...

I believed some. Some had scientists backing it up. Thinking planes are dispersing chemicals on us, as the Government has for decades, is not like believing that the bogeyman is under my bed.

a reply to: intrptr

Proof of pollution? The topic never goes there, thanks to the disinfo specialists.

Well since you don't get around much in this forum you just don't know, but do some research in this forum and you will see your way off as it has come up many times.

And as far as disinfo specialists go...wow that's a new one.

It can only revolve around the question of chem or con trails.

Is this not the geoengineering/chemtrail forum...what else would these threads be about.

Last time I checked pollution wasn't the topic of the thread...chemtrails are.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Ok, please explain how it is possible for an aircraft with a MTOW of 400 tons (a 747, the largest aircraft in service in the U.S.) of which 205 tons is the disposable load (includes fuel, crew and passengers and their luggage too) manages to spray a contrail which will weigh more that the MTOW of the aircraft for every 100km travelled?

When you've answered that, also give an explanation, that does not include the nucleation and freezing of water vapour, as to how a trail can spread out into a sheet of cloud without becoming so thin it's invisible, or even any thinner at all?

These are the two biggest, but most basic BS errors in chemtrails theory.

Who said they were commercial passenger planes?

I thought that chemtrails and contrails were the same things? What I mean is, the reason they are so thick is because they mix chemicals in with the regular airplane exhaust?

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: reldra

They're not. The only thing over your suburban neighborhood is ordinary contrails.

I will agree to disagree.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

You know I am certain they are chemtrails too. It is hysterical how so many just spout the same bs over and over.

So what makes you so certain they exist when there has been not one test of what is called a chemtrail while it is in the air...now how does one know they are real?

As for the same BS...what do you think chemtrail believers do as they haven't brought any new proof since the early 90's when this hoax started.

And even then it wasn't new,because we already knew what they were...contrails.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Ok, please explain how it is possible for an aircraft with a MTOW of 400 tons (a 747, the largest aircraft in service in the U.S.) of which 205 tons is the disposable load (includes fuel, crew and passengers and their luggage too) manages to spray a contrail which will weigh more that the MTOW of the aircraft for every 100km travelled?

When you've answered that, also give an explanation, that does not include the nucleation and freezing of water vapour, as to how a trail can spread out into a sheet of cloud without becoming so thin it's invisible, or even any thinner at all?

These are the two biggest, but most basic BS errors in chemtrails theory.

Who said they were commercial passenger planes?

OK, take out the passengers and their luggage, you only have crew and fuel to account for. Off you go.

If this was all set in stone and decided, it would go to Hoax, not it's OWN forum.