Chemtrail / Contrail Experiment?

reply to post by weedwhacker


My eyes are beginning to well up with tears...Poorrrrrr Weedwacker please don't leave the sandbox on these terms

reply to post by Swingarm


Your sarcasm is duly noted, Swing.

(and they accused ME of taking this thread of track....hmmmmmm)

As to my point, about volcanoes....no, all the volcanoes can do is spew what comes out of the ground....mostly ash, and that DOES affect global climates.

My point, which you conveniently ignored, while trying to bash me, is....we puny humans CANNOT put anything in quantity, into the air, in the same way Mother Nature can. Not from a few airplanes, sorry to burst your bubble there.

Do any of you understand just how BIG our planet is? It is, in case you haven't noticed, almost 3/4 Ocean! AND, upper atmosphere winds are very strong, it's part of the Coriolis Effect.

So, a 'spray' over, for instance....Cornwall might eventually fall on Siberia.

(That was just an example, to convey why it is ludicrous to assume that 'spraying' at high altitudes has any effect on the land below)

If you've ever seen a 'crop-duster' in operation, then you'd understand.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Stop spreading disinformation. You're not bringing any valid arguments into the thread and just coming up with endless arguments about points hardly anyone is making.

Of course mankind can influence the planet. We've had this argument before. I pointed out global dimming, which was being used as an argument to scare people into thinking global warming was even worse, only jet fumes were keeping us cool. So we can effect the climate when it suits the globalist global warming agenda nonsense, but we can't when it comes to finding out what the mysterious spraying is?

I gave you an eyewitness account in a previous thread, I told you I verified with ATC, and all you could come up was ad homine about me not being a credible witness (despite the fact you have little to no idea who I am). And you talk about the years you spend flying airplanes like it should make a diference. It dosen't, these are the flight simulator days, there are 16 year olds with thousands of hours of virtual flight time that understand just as much about airplanes as you do, baring the actual seat of the pants experience of flying them, if your self proclaimed qualifications are even true, as I don't know who you are either. I mean no disrespect here, I'm just pointing out that forum arguments need to focus on the topic, not the person, we are all under veils of relative anonimity here.

It's done, over. You have not debunked chemtrails, they have reached mass consciousness, group mind. It is clear now something is up. We are under atmospheric spraying, for what purpose I don't know. With what effects I can only speculate. But the time of people like you debunking it, in much the same way as is also true for the UFO phenomenon, is over.

Please stop.

reply to post by weedwhacker


reply to post by weedwhacker

My point, which you conveniently ignored, while trying to bash me, is....we puny humans CANNOT put anything in quantity, into the air, in the same way Mother Nature can. Not from a few airplanes, sorry to burst your bubble there.

excerpt from my last post your quote included,
WEED
"My point is, Mother Nature can spew FAR, FAR more amounts into the atmosphere than any puny man-made airplanes can. "

Yes, but can Volcanoes select the make up of what they spew? Man can do that then use this with other technologies from the ground. I don't see your point ?
_____________________________________________________________________________--


Have we established the amount of particulate required to compliment other technologies on the ground? Have we establish the required amount of other chemicals in the spray that are required by each jet spraying to collectively daily, to make an impact on the general population? i would like to see those numbers.

The crop duster analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. in it you assume the only reason to spray is to poison humans with chemical. It is not that simple. Although it appears is a component of this disturbing technology.

Originally posted by Zepherian there are 16 year olds with thousands of hours of virtual flight time that understand just as much about airplanes as you do

I dunno why, but that made me laugh.

reply to post by Swingarm


Swing.....you seem to be missing my point.

IF you 'spray' from a higher altitude, then it will disperse more, and will be harder to control the direction of dispersement.

'cropdusting' is effective, because it is done at just a few feet off the ground, in conditions of low wind speeds. You cannot equate 'spewing' stuff at over 30,000 feet! It is not controllable. Even from 12,000 feet, again, no one can predict with certainty how the winds will blow.

THIS is my argument. THIS is the point of this thread. This thread asks how to prove, either/or. I presented much evidence to refute the 'chemtrail' argument. I did NOT de-rail, I was showing my point of view. NOW, let's see the other side of the arguement. I will read, and hopefully learn.

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Freaky, you always astound me, with your cleverness!

Oh, should this have been a U2U? No, I want everyone to see how great Freaky is, very funny bloke, he is!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


How long will particulate stay in the upper atmosphere? I'm try to make the point that this exercise could be used to change the upper atmosphere into something that will compliment other technologies. The immune system affect component could be secondary and quite secondary at that, who knows. Do you have proof or "facts" to show this is not possible?

reply to post by Swingarm


No, Swing....your direct question was about whether I had knowledge of upper atmospheric contamination, if I may be able to paraphrase.

Point I was making was....the higher you go, in altitude, the larger the surface 'area'....it is simple math. 3xpi squared.

Oh, I know....my math sucks, perhaps someone else can come along and expand upon it, but all I understand is, the more you expand the sphere, the more area you have to cover.

AND, I know a little bit about upper-level winds, and such (hint....they are minimal at the Equator)

Point is, trying to stay with the OP here is: Let's experiment. Try to ascertain whether or not, for instance Morgellon's Disease is indeed being sprayed upon us, or if it has a different vector. Because, from my study, all I see associated with 'chemtrails' is Morgellon's....and, I've seen that debunked numerous times.

reply to post by weedwhacker


reply to post by weedwhacker


More deflection, now you're going to bring up the original poster? This is a first

No, Swing....your direct question was about whether I had knowledge of upper atmospheric contamination, if I may be able to paraphrase.

Point I was making was....the higher you go, in altitude, the larger the surface 'area'....it is simple math. 3xpi squared.

The point I'm making is, within the point you make above, the cumulative particulate is directly proportional to it's ability to suspend.

reply to post by Swingarm


Swing....I saw your post on 'MyATS' hit the top, so I looked in to see if you had anything rleavant to say.

I see it was a waste of my time.

Please come back with something relevant, or just keep blaming the messenger....your choice.

edit....yeah, I made a spell error....didn't correct it, left it STET

[edit on 8/6/0808 by weedwhacker]

Double post on edit,

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by weedwhacker


reply to post by weedwhacker

No, Swing....your direct question was about whether I had knowledge of upper atmospheric contamination, if I may be able to paraphrase.

Point I was making was....the higher you go, in altitude, the larger the surface 'area'....it is simple math. 3xpi squared.

The point I'm making is, within the point you make above, the cumulative particulate is directly proportional to it's ability to suspend.

Swing....I saw your post on 'MyATS' hit the top, so I looked in to see if you had anything rleavant to say.I see it was a waste of my time.

Please come back with something relevant, or just keep blaming the messenger....your choice.

why is the point I'm making , within the point you make above, that the cumulative particulate is directly proportional to it's ability to suspend, irrelevant?

I think we've reached that time in the thread that weedwacker has put his fingers in his ears and said the words LaLaLaLaLaLaLa !!

reply to post by Swingarm


I challenged myself not to reply, but you have made me break that vow, SwingArm.

I am tired of being accused of simthing I didn't do. Instead, I find myself being defensive, when all I did was tell what I know.

This is a tactic I have seen again, and again, on many threads. When someone comes in, and relays facts, he or she gets hit with the standard refrain....'DERAILER '.....'DISINFO AGENT', etc, etc.....

I hope THIS post stays in the mix, so others can come around and read, and judge for themselves. It is evident to me, who is trying to de-rail....anyone else see what I'm referring to?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weedwacker you take great pleasure in entering these threads and debunking them. Thats fine. I'm quite serious when I say that I don't know why you're saying what I said was irrelevant. It could be wrong but irrelevant is not the word I would use.

Originally posted by Swingarm
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

How long will particulate stay in the upper atmosphere? I'm try to make the point that this exercise could be used to change the upper atmosphere into something that will compliment other technologies. The immune system affect component could be secondary and quite secondary at that, who knows. Do you have proof or "facts" to show this is not possible?

Depends on what it is

But why do we think anything is being deliberately sprayed and if, so, by what mechanism?

We might as well ask whether huge amounts of chemicals are being deliberately sprayed into the oceans. Or, for that matter, dozens of nuclear bombs are being detonated in the atmosphere. It's possible to do it but there's no evidence its being done. Some as chemtrails.

What's interesting is that those who believe in chemtrails do not seem to know what they are, why they're being sprayed, or how they're being sprayed. They can provide no verifiable evidence of anything. They just 'know' they are being sprayed. And they refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise.

Maybe if you produced a coherent hypothesis to test we might get somewhere? Otherwise this argument will just go round and round in circles for ever.

reply to post by weedwhacker


What facts? There is a lot more associated with chemtrails than morgellons. We mentioned alluminium in this very thread and the effect it has dumbing down populations, for example. What about barium salts?
What about the associated pathogens that were recently brought up on a coast to coast interview? Pathogens encased in a plastic, to survive the low temperature and to be released at lower altitudes?

You're trying to bury all of this and more, and if you're not a disinfo agent... well, I don't see any other explanation that would result flattering to your intelligence.

Again, please stop.

reply to post by Essan


People don't "believe" in chemtrails, this is not a faith based issue. People see. People KNOW.

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Essan

 

People don't "believe" in chemtrails, this is not a faith based issue. People see. People KNOW.

Exactly my point., They just KNOW

Like people just KNOW a magical amulet will protect them form harm - it doesn't matter how much evidence others offer to show it's not true, they won't listen because they just KNOW

And you know the irony? Some spraying may be taking place. But if it is, you won't see it because you're too busy looking at contrails .....

Although were I intent on spraying the populace with something, I'd add it to your car engines Anyone looked for the source of morgellons, for example, closer to home? Why not? Because someone told you it came from elsewhere and you believe them without question.

reply to post by Zepherian


Zeph....I actually had to laugh out loud, as I read your response.

Have you not bothered to read my other posts? Do you really think that an airplane, or a fleet of airplanes, can take the weight of aluminum, even if it's in pellet or flake form, or whatever, and then 'spray' it over the population below? Seriously, I'd like to hear how you think this could be done.

Or 'barium'....which, I think is heavier than aluminum....I'd have to check my Periodic Table.....

Really, this is a silly discussion....I've already pointed out why it is silly.

To recap....'spraying' at 30,000 feet is pointless. Others have postulated that the military may do it as low as 12,000 feet. Again, if it's military, then I have no idea....I just wish to disabuse anyone who thinks that commercial jets, at altitudes over 30,000 feet, might be 'spraying' chemicals....ain't gonna happen, my friends. Simple as that, it ain't happening.