Chemtrails? Are they for real and what are they for?

a reply to: network dude

oh i thought she was talking about what they actually are doing.
like "this is what we are doing."

so she is just CLAIMING something ? then its not evidence is it. why does the video say 100% proof if she is just CLAIMING something SOMEONE else are doing?

i was under the impression she is SAYING that THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING.

my bad then

originally posted by: SwagLord
a reply to: network dude

oh i thought she was talking about what they actually are doing.
like "this is what we are doing."

so she is just CLAIMING something ? then its not evidence is it. why does the video say 100% proof if she is just CLAIMING something SOMEONE else are doing?

i was under the impression she is SAYING that THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING.

my bad then

that's how this crows rolls. Never anything real, just Amazing stories and pictures of contrails. And most of the "proof" is the same stuff that's been circulating for over a decade now.

it is quite the coincidence though - that What in the world... claimed Aluminum and Barium was primary ingredients of the "chemtrails" and this is also what this lady is stating as fact.

thats quite the coincidence ;/
not sure what to make of this.

Yes they are real and have been a daily occurrence for a couple of years now. I have an aviation background and most are not contrails. What I have noticed is that when there is a lapse in the chem trails there is absolutely no clouds present in the sky anywhere it is like the chem trails are being used to create the missing clouds. reply to: doubleE211

Hang in there and reject the deniers. The truth is coming out (looks like this year, but may drag into 2018.) Having said that: DO make sure you understand contrail science so as to not think everything in the sky is spraying of some sort. Also: I DON'T believe the spraying is to intentionally reduce the population. It is, however, damaging to health and probably contributes a lot more to the human aspect of global warming than the stuff that's spouted as fact.

I use to think it was B.S. too. Not anymore. I don't argue it with folk and I'm just another internet opinion...but take heart: You are not crazy and HELL no they aren't all contrails.

originally posted by: SwagLord
it is quite the coincidence though - that What in the world... claimed Aluminum and Barium was primary ingredients of the "chemtrails" and this is also what this lady is stating as fact.

thats quite the coincidence ;/
not sure what to make of this.

It's been those 3 for a long time, then recently, a guy claimed it was Coal Fly Ash, and everyone jumped on that bandwagon. Trouble is, nothing has been proven, or even remotely suggested as fact with regard to those elements coming from anywhere other than Mother Nature.

Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the earth's crust. It makes up about 7% of the mass (essentially the weight) of the earths crust. If you apply this number to an acre of soil 6 2/3 inches deep (2 million pounds of soil), that 7% "Total Al" would equal about 140,000 lb Al/acre or 70,000 ppm. Those of us involved in producing plants, whether those plants are agricultural, turf, or ornamental, should understand how Al can affect these plants.

www.spectrumanalytic.com...

And if you look up Barium and Strontium, you find they are natural elements found in the soil and in brake pads on most vehicles. So if you really want to learn about this topic, I suggest going about it using more than just chemtrail sites. They will tell you what they want you to know, and not much else.

a reply to: The GUT

I understand you don't wish to debate this, but making empirical statements about this topic, then not backing them up is something lots of folks do, and it doesn't show how much integrity they have.

If the person who believes in chemtrails was an honest person who was willing to put in a little effort on their part, I can offer the tools to convince yourself that those white lines in the sky are very likely contrails. But don't feel pressured to respond. I do understand some folks get a bit worked up over this. I have tried to tone my posts down over the years and offer undisputed facts that can be verified.

originally posted by: gimcrackery
Yes they are real and have been a daily occurrence for a couple of years now. I have an aviation background and most are not contrails. What I have noticed is that when there is a lapse in the chem trails there is absolutely no clouds present in the sky anywhere it is like the chem trails are being used to create the missing clouds. reply to: doubleE211

I am interested in what your aviation background consists of.

a reply to: network dude

I was open about it being just another internet opinion--just like yours. Yes, contrails exist and some mistake anything in the sky for "chemtrails." I myself totally understand the basic science of contrails.

So, having given a disclaimer, I just left some support for the OP and others. My journey includes growing up an Air Force brat with an intense interest in aircraft and air operations.

My father retired with 26-yrs in the AF and thinks all "conspiracy theorists" are somewhat off-kilter. He, like me, also wonders what the hell these obvious air operations are. That's when I started looking into it and found my own answers which I encouraged others to do with caution.

Like I said, though, and we'll see, but I do believe the lid is being lifted. If not, I'll admit that. If it does turn out to be true, I would expect the same from you. Peace, Dude.

OK, Let's settle this once and for all.

Here's a photo from the deck of our B373-800.

I admit it, we've been doing it for years....this is actually fitted to all commercial aircraft. To now, it's been a big secret among all of us commercial pilots, but I feel the need to shout this out.

originally posted by: The GUT
I would expect the same from you. Peace, Dude.

As long as I have been looking for anything tangible for this, I would be amazed and on board with anything about stopping it, if it was something real. If you have evidence that hasn't been seen, I assure you most of the ones here who argue against them would be equally amazed and alarmed. But as I said, if you wish to put in a few hours in your spare time, I think I can let you convince yourself that those white lines are likely just contrails.

a reply to: doubleE211

They've been doing this for a while !

a reply to: network dude

If that evidence is about the atmospheric mechanics of contrails, I promise I understand that. I know they can be persistent and that air temperature can be diverse at different altitudes for example.

If it also includes the fact that the most common chemicals/natural antagonists usually associated with the topic can be found in nature, I basically agree and promise that I understand that as well. "Chaff"--whether defensive or for increased over-the horizon relay--I'm pretty up on too. Chaff was my first guess when I started looking at the topic.

If it's something other than those three items/arguments and it's science-based I'm willing to look at it. I'm not willing to spend time reading any more opinions on why it's "not plausible." I've read a lot of those.

And just for the record, I don't believe it has anything to do with the commercial airlines, nor do I believe it has anything to do with "depopulation" theories as I previously stated.

I think you would have to agree that spraying/releasing substances and/or simple, generally degradable devices in our skies for various test purposes is nothing particularly new. I'm also assuming that you understand that the search for weaponized weather modification is a pretty old concept within our military-industrial complex. I'm not saying those two things prove it, I just want to make sure you've taken those factual items into consideration in your own "evidences."

I don't think I bring anything particularly new to the argument. My feeling that it's "probable" is a conglomeration of various "evidences" combined with some walking back on past government denials ("Nooooo, we don't do anything like that, you're uneducated and/or a loon" to "Okay, we do some stuff like that, but it's not what you think.")

Please do forgive me for not caring to detail & debate it. I think you know that, right or wrong, I don't come to any conclusions or opinions lightly and generally shake both sides fairly thoroughly. I respect you and don't think you come to your conclusions lightly either.

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: network dude

If that evidence is about the atmospheric mechanics of contrails, I promise I understand that. I know they can be persistent and that air temperature can be diverse at different altitudes for example.

If it also includes the fact that the most common chemicals/natural antagonists usually associated with the topic can be found in nature, I basically agree and promise that I understand that as well. "Chaff"--whether defensive or for increased over-the horizon relay--I'm pretty up on too. Chaff was my first guess when I started looking at the topic.

If it's something other than those three items/arguments and it's science-based I'm willing to look at it. I'm not willing to spend time reading any more opinions on why it's "not plausible." I've read a lot of those.

And just for the record, I don't believe it has anything to do with the commercial airlines, nor do I believe it has anything to do with "depopulation" theories as I previously stated.

I think you would have to agree that spraying/releasing substances and/or simple, generally degradable devices in our skies for various test purposes is nothing particularly new. I'm also assuming that you understand that the search for weaponized weather modification is a pretty old concept within our military-industrial complex. I'm not saying those two things prove it, I just want to make sure you've taken those factual items into consideration in your own "evidences."

I don't think I bring anything particularly new to the argument. My feeling that it's "probable" is a conglomeration of various "evidences" combined with some walking back on past government denials ("Nooooo, we don't do anything like that, you're uneducated and/or a loon" to "Okay, we do some stuff like that, but it's not what you think.")

Please do forgive me for not caring to detail & debate it. I think you know that, right or wrong, I don't come to any conclusions or opinions lightly and generally shake both sides fairly thoroughly. I respect you and don't think you come to your conclusions lightly either.

So in a nutshell: You suspect that someone somewhere might be spraying something for some reason.

originally posted by: SwagLord

not sure what to make of this.

Quite simple really. She's just another believer and they just blindly repeat what they've been told without question.

Anyone who doesn't believe them or dares to question is a sheep who needs to wake up or must be paid to deny it.

a reply to: The GUT

Yup, you said the magic words. You don't think it has to do with commercial airliners. My idea is relatively easy and free. You will need to download flight aware on your phone. It's an application that identifies planes in real time. Next, keep an eye on the weather. Best chance for trails is a day or two before a frontal system is incoming. When you see those trails that look way different than normal contrails, identify the plane and see if you find any commercial planes leaving a trail like that. If you do, then you have proven that a plane loaded with fuel and passengers and luggage was able to make a trail just like a chemtrail, yet would have no way to carry a payload of anything, due to it's weight restrictions.

That is assuming you subscribe to the theory that you can identify a chemtrail as opposed to a contrail by sight alone.



Please let me know your thoughts.

a reply to: The GUT

Hallelujah..!

Now that I see the GUT shares my uneasy conviction of the actuality of the chemtrail phenomenon, and the cover up, and the fact that in truth it's not quite what the 'mainstream' chemtrail conspiracy buffs have been claiming, I feel super-validated. But really, I do.

I respect your opinion so much, due to past content & discussions, and your comment in this thread is so loaded with the type of educated, non-hyperbolic suggestion which I've come to expect means some good knowledge is in the offing, that I categorically have renewed faith in Humanity on this cold, damp Tuesday lunchtime here in the UK. Truly, from the general tone, content & derogatory tactical spam-debunking rinse & repeat which goes on in this forum, it's quite possible to lose all hope that we will ever see our way out of the disinformation.

Monsieur GUT, I salute you. And I humbly suggest you run for Office in 2020. Here's a slogan which might work:

"2020 vision with The GUT; you will see the truth, and the truth will make you free.."

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

out of pure curiosity, if The Gut took my challenge and did find that commercial airliners were leaving persistent trails, thus leading to the conclusion that chemtrails are really contrails, would you change your opinion, or would it take more than his epiphany to do so?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

out of pure curiosity, if The Gut took my challenge and did find that commercial airliners were leaving persistent trails, thus leading to the conclusion that chemtrails are really contrails, would you change your opinion, or would it take more than his epiphany to do so?

Contrails exist. Indisputably. I'm also familiar with the software. I speak of military air operations. Lord, I thought you had more than that, Network?

I came to this subject late because I thought it was loony. When the most honest badass non-conspiracy-believing WWII veteran brought up the operations obviously being flown regularly and we then began noticing certain atmospheric characteristics consistently follow, I decided to give it a look.

I researched pretty durn diligently and fairly and made up my own mind. I felt no need to enter the debate except to occasionally give a brief account of my journey from skeptic to believer---and that only to give a bit of encouragement to the poor, beat down souls who had come to similar conclusions and have been cruelly derided for it.

Yes this "field" has some cuckoos in it. That doesn't take away from the overall subject nor does it reflect in any way on some of the excellent researchers that also have come to the conclusion that there's something to this.

The reason I'm not gonna make a case here is because if I do enter this debate, I'm going to do my own thread where I can come to the table locked & loaded.

I didn't go on this journey to do a thread. I wanted an answer and I wouldn't accept hooey from either side. An OP like this would be a massive amount of work and I don't really have that time at the moment. Then again...I'm starting to get tempted. Cheers, Y'all!

a reply to: The GUT

I am afraid you have me over a barrel then. All I know is you "believe", but I haven't a clue what it is that you believe.

Some folks think they can look at a line in the sky and just "know" is a chemtrail. Those are the ones I can attempt to show that commercial planes leave the same trails, so no, it's not just military planes doing this.

If you choose to be cryptic in order to maintain your position, I can respect that, but with this topic, what I see is omitting facts is the only way to keep the theory alive. If it was true, and there really was a spray operation going on, those of us who do the debunking would be quite an asset to proving it, as we all seem to have some specific knowledge of aviation and or weather. But do as you wish, I don't want to show you or anyone else here disrespect. ('here' being this forum, I mean to disrespect the loons in the mud pit)