Chemtrails in Pasco, WA.

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, so they're not commercial passenger planes....I'll go with that, forbthe sake of argument...So what kind of planes do you propose? No military planes have the physical capacity to do such massive spraying either.

a reply to: darkbake

No, they don't.

a reply to: reldra

Commercial aircraft have been identified multiple times as "spraying" chemtrails.

originally posted by: waynos

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.

Off I go where? Of course there are planes capable of carrying a chemical load and dispersal system. I don;t know what you are trying to say?

Weak argument. The existence of a forum does not define the reality of the topic. See also Loch Ness a Monster, Moon landings etc. the forum is also here for geoengineering, which is a real topic.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: reldra

Commercial aircraft have been identified multiple times as "spraying" chemtrails.

But not every time. What if the thing has a small crew, no luggage and doesn't have full fuel tanks?

Planes hitting buildings on 9/11 were described interchangeably as a commercial aircraft in which no one could ascertain the company by looking at it on film, a smaller plane or a dark plane with no windows.

a reply to: reldra

Some had scientists backing it up.

No they didn't.

Thinking planes are dispersing chemicals on us, as the Government has for decades, is not like believing that the bogeyman is under my bed.

Yes it is, because the bogeyman under your bed has a better chance of causing you harm before a so called chemtrail ever will.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: waynos

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.

Off I go where? Of course there are planes capable of carrying a chemical load and dispersal system. I don;t know what you are trying to say?

My mistake. I thought you might have read the post you quoted and replied to

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: reldra

Some had scientists backing it up.

No they didn't.

Thinking planes are dispersing chemicals on us, as the Government has for decades, is not like believing that the bogeyman is under my bed.

Yes it is, because the bogeyman under your bed has a better chance of causing you harm before a so called chemtrail ever will.

Yes they did and no, the 2nd thing is not true. You can type it over and over, doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: reldra

Some had scientists backing it up.

No they didn't.

Thinking planes are dispersing chemicals on us, as the Government has for decades, is not like believing that the bogeyman is under my bed.

Yes it is, because the bogeyman under your bed has a better chance of causing you harm before a so called chemtrail ever will.

Yes they did and no, the 2nd thing is not true. You can type it over and over, doesn't make it true.

Then back up your statement with evidence to the contrary...

a reply to: reldra

MTOW is a fixed weight. Without full fuel tanks, they can't fly as far, so they spray a smaller area. But even if they removed fuel weight, and added chemical weight instead, it still couldn't carry enough to spray from horizon to horizon.

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: waynos

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.

Off I go where? Of course there are planes capable of carrying a chemical load and dispersal system. I don;t know what you are trying to say?

My mistake. I thought you might have read the post you quoted and replied to

I did.

a reply to: reldra

Of course there are planes capable of carrying a chemical load and dispersal system.

And how many of them look like this when they spray?

originally posted by: admirethedistance

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, so they're not commercial passenger planes....I'll go with that, forbthe sake of argument...So what kind of planes do you propose? No military planes have the physical capacity to do such massive spraying either.

That we know of. And what is massive to you? I have seen 2 or 3 planes doing this over about 10 mi sq for hours. The SAME planes going back and forth.

originally posted by: intrptr

That makes it okay then. Everyone is doing it.

Really? you think pollution is OK because everyone is doing it?? How odd....

I'm confused,

Yes - I think you are

did you just agree with me and justify the pollution in one post?

I didn't JUSTIFY anything - I gave you some factual information.

Sorry you didn't notice it and/or don't understand the difference.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: reldra

Of course there are planes capable of carrying a chemical load and dispersal system.

And how many of them look like this when they spray?

That looks more like a contrail, above the clouds.

a reply to: reldra

Yes they did and no, the 2nd thing is not true. You can type it over and over, doesn't make it true.

Then you already know what I am going to ask for?

And saying it doesn't either, but that doesn't stop you now does it?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: admirethedistance

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, so they're not commercial passenger planes....I'll go with that, forbthe sake of argument...So what kind of planes do you propose? No military planes have the physical capacity to do such massive spraying either.

That we know of. And what is massive to you? I have seen 2 or 3 planes doing this over about 10 mi sq for hours. The SAME planes going back and forth.

What were their tail numbers? Surely you must know, if you were able to conclusively identify them as the same planes.

a reply to: reldra


Well, go back to the post you supposedly read then, when you understand it, go ahead and answer the question. If you've been researching this since dial up days, it should be a doddle.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: reldra

Yes they did and no, the 2nd thing is not true. You can type it over and over, doesn't make it true.

Then you already know what I am going to ask for?

And saying it doesn't either, but that doesn't stop you now does it?

I answered in the same format as you typed.