Coal ash the new chemtrail additive...or so this says.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

Pointless semantics really move the discussion along don't they

You missed the point.

If i say that chemtrails do not exist then i would be full of crap.

If i say people are not adding chemicals into the exhaust of planes then i am making a valid point.

This little gem comes up in just about every thread the poster makes and has derailed many conversations on the topic.

Pretty sure most chemtrail believers and debunkers know what people mean when they say chemtrails

Yes most assume.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Real funny!

Honestly your posting style here makes your points incoherent to many.

so unicorns are real then?

the word is defined so it must be real.

Yes it is very incoherent in your interpretation.

However, This doesn't say anything about my posting style but more so about your how you interpret things you read.

Which when one looks at your posting its no wonder you interpret things in such a way.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Words and definitions mean things.

I was not speaking of your overall posting style but your style in that single post and i made reference to that in my comment. I frequently agree with you and have enjoyed many other post you have made.

u·ni·corn
ˈyo͞onəˌkôrn/Submit
noun
1.
a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.
2.
a start-up company valued at more than a billion dollars, typically in the software or technology sector.

a reply to: howtonhawky

No only to you...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No

yes is much better than no

only

What do you mean only?

to

Like less than three?

you

I am no sheep

...

That was my guess the whole time.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

yes, Jets pollute like buses, trucks, cars, cranes, generators, anything using fuel for combustion. But the visible trail you may see, is water vapor. The nasty stuff is not seen and exists from engine start to engine stop. Even present when the GTC runs.

for people who are now attempting to focus on the " polution from jet exhausts "

FFS - get a grip - the sane world already knows that burning 5 tons of kerosene = polution

and if you are REALLY scared of " polution " - then ships should scare you to death - but hey carry on

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

yes, Jets pollute like buses, trucks, cars, cranes, generators, anything using fuel for combustion. But the visible trail you may see, is water vapor. The nasty stuff is not seen and exists from engine start to engine stop. Even present when the GTC runs.

That visible stuff in a condensation trail is water vapor mixed with exhaust.

I do wonder why this concept is so hard to admit for the masses cause it has nothing to do with other sinister plans to add even more pollutants into the atmosphere.

Now perhaps the experts can tell us why cars do not produce such condensation trails cause even in denver(high altitude) it does not happen.

I think that is what people keep going on about.

a reply to: howtonhawky


Denver is called "the Mile High City" with an elevation of 5,280 feet I believe. I think that commercial airlines cruise at @ 30,000 feet plus so I think that things like air temperature at that height may be a tad different to that at ground level, even in Denver, no?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: howtonhawky


Denver is called "the Mile High City" with an elevation of 5,280 feet I believe. I think that commercial airlines cruise at @ 30,000 feet plus so I think that things like air temperature at that height my be a tad different to that at ground level, even in Denver, no?

It would be interesting to get to the bottom of it.

It is cold in denver and the air is thin and there should be some traces of contrails that last some time there.

If the air gets much thinner then perhaps the oxygen would be so sparse that combustion would be a problem.

I would like to know why we do not see contrails at ground level in high altitude areas.

Even at 15,000 ft in the cold we do not see vehicles leaving those trails that persist.

www.postandcourier.com...

Outside help enlisted to secure SC coal ash pits from flood after McMaster’s concern

a reply to: howtonhawky

Even at 15,000 ft in the cold we do not see vehicles leaving those trails that persist.

Where's that, then? Not Denver, it's 10,000 odd feet less than that. See above.

Do you not think there is a bit of a difference between a jet engine and a car engine?

a reply to: howtonhawky

It's already gotten to the bottom of. Contrails form in temperatures around -70F. When Denver gets that cold you might see some from cars.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yea there is a difference one is being used to manipulate the atmosphere and the other is used to drive kids to school.

Highest paved roads of the USA
State Elevation (ft) Highest point
Colorado 14,120 Mount Evans
Colorado 14,115 Pikes Peak
Colorado 12,183 Trail Ridge Road Rocky Mtn NP (US 34)

Sure the contrail would be smaller but not non existent.

So i could create a contrail with a car in real cold temperature?

Is the air a factor in any other way?

Can it be recreated?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howtonhawky

It's already gotten to the bottom of. Contrails form in temperatures around -70F. When Denver gets that cold you might see some from cars.

Pics or it never happened.

a reply to: howtonhawky


Good luck with starting a car at -70!

educate-yourself.org...

There is also that thing we call gravity.

If water vapor is turning into ice then we would be able to watch it fall from the sky at like 30 ft.per second or something like that.


If the air is thin then the ice crystals should fall even faster than normal altitudes where there is more resistance cause thicker air.

Something is not adding up.

a reply to: JimNasium


Orgone generators? Be serious. And "chemtrails" are part of a "Depopulation program"? If they are, I have news for you - it's not bloody working, is it?