Lets settle contrails vs nano dispersion

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Also, can you address my point about planes creating very little pollution compared to all the other sources?

why?
the conspiracy does not revolve around the levels of such so it is really besides the point

again I am not here about how we are polluting our home only that this particular conspiracy has no end in sight even with the best efforts of many trying to put it to bed

for the record if you say that planes create less pollution then I will take your word for it until you make a thread about it and then I couls likely show how data may or may not be skewed in the research

FFS...please use your common sense. I dont need to look up data to show that the airline industry creates less pollution than the billions of cars and millions of factories. Lets not be childish.

childish?when logic fails then we resort to name calling

you are bringing nonsensical points and you perceive data in a way to further your confusion

make the thread or do the research if you believe you are correct and are interrupting the data correctly

any fool can see the failure in the logic you use to make the false claim you just made

spin much?

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Also, can you address my point about planes creating very little pollution compared to all the other sources?

why?
the conspiracy does not revolve around the levels of such so it is really besides the point

again I am not here about how we are polluting our home only that this particular conspiracy has no end in sight even with the best efforts of many trying to put it to bed

for the record if you say that planes create less pollution then I will take your word for it until you make a thread about it and then I couls likely show how data may or may not be skewed in the research

FFS...please use your common sense. I dont need to look up data to show that the airline industry creates less pollution than the billions of cars and millions of factories. Lets not be childish.

childish?when logic fails then we resort to name calling

you are bringing nonsensical points and you perceive data in a way to further your confusion

make the thread or do the research if you believe you are correct and are interrupting the data correctly

any fool can see the failure in the logic you use to make the false claim you just made

spin much?

First off..please tell me where i used name calling
Second..im not gong to start a thread becasue i belive what im sayign so why on earth would i open up the debate. There is no debate.

You have said NOTHING in all your posts in this matter. You have made no solid claim, not provided any proof for anything, made vague sweeping generalisations. You are being fluffy and i really cant be arsed to debate with someone who keeps telling me to start a thread to back up well kknown and widely accpeted facts. Maybe one of the others will indulge your fluffyness...i wont anymore.


And no, this doesn not mean you have "won" or i am running away. Im just busy at work and if you are not going to debate properly, then im not wasting time.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

their is no win or lose or even a debate

facts are facts chemtrails are real and the conspiracy continues

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: 3danimator2014

their is no win or lose or even a debate

facts are facts chemtrails are real and the conspiracy continues

More vague musings...

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

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

Clear documentation or credible whistleblowing would be examples - this myth says that thousands of aircraft worldwide are daily engaged in making these chemtrails - and yet there is no evidence of any dispersal mechanisms on aircraft, no loadsheets showing anything being loaded for spraying, no pilots or mechanics coming forward (except for a handful anonymous ones who's "testimony" is, frankly, nonsense) who can be cross examined and their claims verified

dispersal mechanism would be exhaust systems

So you are hypothesizing?

no load sheets would be made for something undercover

Another hypothetical statement, and again your lack of actual aviation knowledge shows - loading any material on board without completing appropriate weight and balance documents would be illegal and dangerous - whistle-blowing would be simple and easy to do, and supported by the vast majority of people in the industry.

the fact that the ones to come forward so far have been deemed nonsense by debunkers

Are you seriously saying that debunking something is evidence that it must be true??

It is not that they have been "deemed nonsense" - it is that rational analysis has shown them to be nonsense.

I hold the belief that such a goal of putting forrign substances into the air using planes could be done in a manner that leaves no traces and frankly any methoed that would leave tracks would dumb and not last long.

Well you are entitled to hold that belief......but if whatever it is leaves no traces then how can it accomplish anything?

And since it leaves no traces you must accept that there is no evidence, and therefore you are not entitled to say it isd a "fact"........and that if you DO choose to put it forward as a fact you are going to have the shortcomings in your argument pointed out - ie you are going to be debunked!

we have many chemist and such that could easily use additives that are inert until raised to extreme heat. let us be real and agree that the fuel going into an engine is not the same after it is burnt and many chemicals can be altered in this manner to form other compounds that could be then used to further certain goals

the fuel going into an engine has a defined chemical makeup that is a worldwide standard - Def Std 91-91 - in every country I know of using nythign else is illegal, as it is a requirement to use only approved materials on aircraft - including fuel.

You can buy jet fuel from airports at various palces - feel free to do so and test some.....

honestly if people came forward and made claims of things they seen on the job do you think anyone would believe them or not.

Suer - if hteir claims weer credible 0- it happens all the time in all sorts of fields.

Just look to the ufo events where many credible people come forward just to be debunked by others.

So what - if any claim has bunk then why shouldn't it be debunked??

I will stand firmly behind the claim that the topic is so well defamed at this point there is no amount of evidence you or others would accept because many are paid not to and others are carring the weight for sinister plans.

bollocks.

We do know for a fact that such chemtrails coming from planes have been deployed in the past by the government with bad intentions. Thousands of lives have been taken by such actions

Such as, perhaps, Agent Orange in Vietnam?? sure......but it did leave residue, it didn't come from engines, it wasn't done at high altitude.....it is no evidence whatsoever of anything happening today.

I read once, the whistle blower report of an ATC. I have been unable to find it since. He had all the details. Where the chems where stored, when and how they got on the plane, how the flight manifests weights were corrected, how the spraying was controlled remotely, which tanks were used, which planes were capable, how they were chosen, how they kept pilots and other ATCs in the dark. All the questions we want to know he had.

I remember quite a bit, but id rather find the original, to see if it stands uo to scrutiny. I can say it was quite convincing.

Contrails do persist. In a narrow range of atmospheric conditions. Perhaps it is chance that those conditions are much more prevalent than they used to be, or there is some fuel additive that expanda the range of conditions in which they can persist.

Ill take a brief look for that paper.

Anyone saying the navy was spraying radioactive material over SF in the 50s or 60s was probably laughed out of the room, until the program was declassified.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: 3danimator2014

their is no win or lose or even a debate

facts are facts chemtrails are real and the conspiracy continues

What conspiracy?

You think that anything that emits chemicals is a chemtrail. Good for you. Cows emit methane, so chemtrails. No argument. Also, no conspiracy. thanks for playing.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

Anyone saying the navy was spraying radioactive material over SF in the 50s or 60s was probably laughed out of the room, until the program was declassified.

Yes, and that was done from rooftops. Go figure.

Chemtrails/geoengineering is very real

No one is immune from breathing this poison

a reply to: deadeyedick

chemtrails are fact

No they aren't...they are a conspiracy theory leaning really hard towards hoax. ( I am being nice )

even the term condensation trail is covered under the definition of chemtrail.

Under who's definition?

in order to successfully determine if more than usual additives and such are not being put into fuel one would need to test every flight in order to be 100% sure that the exhaust is nothing out of the ordinary

Or you check the fuel from the truck that is refueling...no need to check the plane, as it doesn't have a way to add anything after it is airborne.

So anything that shouldn't be in there would have to come from the refueling truck and testing that would show it.

you can pull up any facts you like and put forth your best logical debates but anything short of 100% is just like banging your head against the wall

So to you facts don't matter...but utter BS you listen too. I guess one can't argue with that way of thinking...nor should one try.

And the only thing that feels like banging my head against the wall...is how chemtrail believers say they exist without having one piece of scientific evidence, or for you any evidence that proves they in fact do exist.

Perhaps someday in the future some of you that believe you are the earths gift to education can design an engine that has no harmful exhaust then there will be no chemtrails unless other deployment means are in place

The problem is that with engines becoming more efficient they are going to produce more contrails...

The Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on ‘Aviation and the Global Atmosphere’ [10] notes that engine efficiency improvements reduce the specific fuel consumption and, hence, most types of emissions, but contrails may increase. It also notes that contrail cover is projected to grow faster than aviation fuel consumption in the long-term future, partly because future aircraft will have higher propulsion efficiency.

elib.dlr.de...

So unless you want to refinance your house to take a plane trip in the future...contrails are going to be there.

And as far as being earth's gift to education...I prefer to be called God's gift.

a reply to: Jovenof93

Chemtrails/geoengineering is very real

No one is immune from breathing this poison

Well your half right.

Chemtrails don't exist...and geoengineering exists in computer modeling, and nothing in the real world.

And what poison would that be?

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Anyone saying the navy was spraying radioactive material over SF in the 50s or 60s was probably laughed out of the room, until the program was declassified.

And nothing they sprayed was harmful to those who were sprayed.

Secret Army Chemical Tests Did Not Harm Health, Report Says

The panel, which looked at the toxicity of the compound and its components as well as exposure data collected by the military, said it was highly unlikely that people were exposed to significant levels of the most dangerous component, cadmium. In occupational studies and studies on animals, cadmium inhaled in high doses has been found to be a cause of lung cancer.

In most of the Army tests, people were exposed to such small amounts of the compound that they would have been likely to get higher doses of cadmium from environmental and industrial sources, the report said.

www.nytimes.com...

I always love when that is brought out as evidence.

Perhaps it is chance that those conditions are much more prevalent than they used to be, or there is some fuel additive that expanda the range of conditions in which they can persist.

No it's because you have more efficient engines burning less fuel but producing more contrails...and no there isn't an additive in the fuel that would do that.

Here this might help you out a bit...

www.faa.gov...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Weak tea for you

Nice try

a reply to: deadeyedick

Weak tea for you

Not at all.

So I take it you are unable to prove they are real, and aren't a conspiracy theory leaning hard toward hoax?

Because nobody has done that for as long as the conspiracy theory has been around.

Can you do it?

originally posted by: Jovenof93
Chemtrails/geoengineering is very real

No one is immune from breathing this poison

What poison?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

Anyone saying the navy was spraying radioactive material over SF in the 50s or 60s was probably laughed out of the room, until the program was declassified.

Yes, and that was done from rooftops. Go figure.

Is that the zinc sulphide (?) experiments??

AFAIK that wasn't radioactive.

The military certainly did various dispersal experiments in the 50's right through to the 70's - it is pretty well documented now.

they used biological and chemical agents that were thought to be harmless but easy to track - the zinc substance was fluorescent, and the biologicals were a particular strain.

In each case there was plenty of evidence should anyone have looked for it - which of course the public were not doing.

But in any case "they did it then so they must be doing it now" is just a nonsense argument.

Pollution is real. As for geo-engineering, you have to look at this from a reasonable standpoint. I'm sure lots of research is done
on this subject, but nothing big scale. We would have noticed something by now.

If you were head of the operation what is your goal, and how&when would you achieve this?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: deadeyedick

Weak tea for you

Not at all.

So I take it you are unable to prove they are real, and aren't a conspiracy theory leaning hard toward hoax?

Because nobody has done that for as long as the conspiracy theory has been around.

Can you do it?

It is obvious that works both ways

So have any recreations been done using controlled models and thin air that any of you know of?

a reply to: deadeyedick

It is obvious that works both ways

No, because we know contrails exist and have studied them to see what the effects of contrails have on our environment.

Jet Contrail Studies Using Polarization Lidar

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Contrail Studies

mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov...

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

www.rmets.org...

www.rmets.org...

Okay your turn...show proof chemtrails do in fact exist, and have some studies of them to present..although I am not going hold my breath waiting for it

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, because we know contrails exist and have studied them to see what the effects of contrails have on our environment.

bs
it works both ways and that is one big reason this site exist.

if it did not work both ways then the thread would not continue.

if you want to gain any ground with most people you have to know the facts

fact is the conspiracy is real and not proven either way

The reason you get weak tea is because you fail to acknowledge the reasons the conspiracy lives on

originally posted by: deadeyedick
if you want to gain any ground with most people you have to know the facts

Which is why those that believe in chemtrails are not gaining any ground, as they have no facts!

This is the standard of "facts" that chemtrail believers have!