Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

reply to post by Phage


So where does it say in all of this that conspiracy theorist talked the sentator into putting that word into the initial bill??? looks like your the one with the conspiracy theory

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Well off coarse the sentator is not "into that" he probaly divulged somthing top secret on a public bill....not smart.. now the goverment has to rely on debunkers talking to conpiracy theorists telling them that conpiracy theorists talked the senator into putting the word chemtrail into the initial bill.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by dave420
The ignorance and irrationality displayed in this thread is stunning.

The sad part is, it appears to be willful and intentional.

The ability to change your opinion in the face of new or different evidence is--at least it used to be--an admirable trait. If you're like me, the cranial density exhibited nowadays makes your head spin.

No chemtrail whack can explain how chemicals sprayed at 30,000 ft, in the presence of dramatic air currents, is expected to have any hope of hitting any intended target. Just once, I'd like to see one notice a persistent contrail.....then follow it. Maybe they'd get lost in the woods.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by dave420
The ignorance and irrationality displayed in this thread is stunning.

The sad part is, it appears to be willful and intentional.

The ability to change your opinion in the face of new or different evidence is--at least it used to be--an admirable trait. If you're like me, the cranial density exhibited nowadays makes your head spin.

No chemtrail whack can explain how chemicals sprayed at 30,000 ft, in the presence of dramatic air currents, is expected to have any hope of hitting any intended target. Just once, I'd like to see one notice a persistent contrail.....then follow it. Maybe they'd get lost in the woods.

resorting to name calling are we? ? we are not in grade school. Just because you are wrong doesn't give you the right to call ats members names.. Not cool

reply to post by thefreepatriot


Once more: Kucinich did not write the bill, he introduced the bill.

Anyone can write up, or draft a bill, but only a member of Congress can introduce it.

Congress for Dummies

He said himself that he did not know the "exotic weapons" were included when he introduced the bill.

"Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, 'Look, I'm not interested in going there.' "

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
planes don't create clouds last time I checked..

Yes they do. They have been observed to have done so since the 1920s. They are called contrails and, depending on atmospheric conditions, may spread out to cover the sky.

See, for example:

Source

The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

(Paper published in 1970)

And because I know some people don;t know how to click on lionks, I'll post this bit in full:

Source

There are many types of clouds in the sky. Did you know that some of them are man-made? "Contrails" are the long, thin clouds that are left by airplanes as they fly past.

Contrails is short for "condensation trails." They are clouds that planes make. Contrails are man-made. They have a cousin that almost everyone has seen. Have you ever gone outside on a cold day? Have you seen a cloud come out of your mouth? That little cloud is made by water vapor that is usually invisible. In cold weather, the vapor condenses into a cloud you can see.

Contrails are made the same way. A plane has an engine. The exhaust from the engine has water vapor. Temperatures are colder at higher altitudes. Water vapor condenses into ice crystals. This leaves the white lines you see behind planes.

Sometimes, there is water in the air around the plane. This can make the contrail even bigger. If there is not a lot of water in the air, the contrails will not last long.

When there is a lot of water in the air, the contrails will last longer. Ice from the plane will join water in the atmosphere. This will make a long contrail behind the airplane. It will stay in the sky long after the plane is gone. They can last for hours! They can even grow. They can get as big as football fields. They can spread until they turn into cirrus clouds.

Contrails are made of water vapor. They do not hurt humans. NASA is trying to see if contrails may hurt the environment. Contrails are man-made clouds. They add to the Earth's cloud coverage. They might change temperatures and climates. We see a lot of contrails wherever there is heavy plane traffic.

Air traffic keeps getting busier. Scientists are looking into what contrails might do. NASA might find that contrails hurt the environment. NASA wants to stop this from happening. One way would be to have planes fly away from problem areas. Another way is to make better engines. NASA is working with partners to make better jet engines. Someday, you might not even see contrails behind planes!

So, if what you are seeing are chemtrails, how do you tell them apart? Or do you believe atmospheric science is wrong and if so, why?


Chemtrails may be real. But what you see in the skies and thing are chemtrails are not chemtrails.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by Phage

 

So where does it say in all of this that conspiracy theorist talked the sentator into putting that word into the initial bill??? looks like your the one with the conspiracy theory

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Where does it say in all this what chemtrails look like? What makes you think the bill referred to what most people call contrails? Maybe it meant chemical spraying which would not be visible from the ground?

Indeed, where does it say that chemtrails are not just a trail of chemicals laid along the ground by a man walking with a fertiliser sack that has a hole in the bottom????

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
I hava a good question to all you "debunkers\meterologists"

if chemtrails DON"T exists then why WOULD they be mentioned by NAME in the initial draft of HR 2977??

Because a bunch of chemtrail believers talked a senator into including it in his bill, even though he did not know it was a conspiracy theory. The Senator took some heat over that as well.

I didn't say he wrote the bill defcon 5 did .. perhaps your group should get your facts\story straight

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by Phage

 

So where does it say in all of this that conspiracy theorist talked the sentator into putting that word into the initial bill??? looks like your the one with the conspiracy theory

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Where does it say in all this what chemtrails look like?

What makes you think the bill referred to what most people call contrails? Maybe it meant chemical spraying which would not be visible from the ground?

Indeed, where does it say that chemtrails are not just a trail of chemicals laid along the ground by a man walking with a fertiliser sack that has a hole in the bottom????

And where does it say its not planes spraying chemicals in the air?

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

Originally posted by Essan

Indeed, where does it say that chemtrails are not just a trail of chemicals laid along the ground by a man walking with a fertiliser sack that has a hole in the bottom????

And where does it say its not planes spraying chemicals in the air?

Touche! But you know what I mean


Anyway, maybe we should stop running over old, old, old ground and give some purpose back to this thread before Oz comes back and sees we changed it into the same old same old.


So, given the thread is about why contrails persist etc and thus are not chemtrails, can anyone offer a counter point - show that contrails do not persist and spread out as some claim? Show that what people see cannot be contrails and must be chemtrails?

Whether or not chemtrails can or do exist is in many ways a moot point. The point is whether what you see in the skies are chemtrails.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by Phage

 

So where does it say in all of this that conspiracy theorist talked the sentator into putting that word into the initial bill??? looks like your the one with the conspiracy theory

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Where does it say in all this what chemtrails look like?

What makes you think the bill referred to what most people call contrails? Maybe it meant chemical spraying which would not be visible from the ground?

Indeed, where does it say that chemtrails are not just a trail of chemicals laid along the ground by a man walking with a fertiliser sack that has a hole in the bottom????

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

I don't see anywhere where it say "exotic weopons systen" includes weapons designed to damage lawns or natural ecossytems(such as backyards and front yards or lawns)

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Not cool

I don't give a rolling dougnut about "cool"....

I am concerned about the lack of reasoning skills exhibited by members of a forum that used to be known for good discussion and insightful comments.

Do you care to take a stab at working through the scenario I presented? The one about the futility in "hitting the target?" Maybe we should scale down the thought experiment a tad....huh? How 'bout, emptying a can of RAID! at the warning track of Wrigley Field, expecting to harm the mosquito sitting on home plate?

Yeah....chemtrail whacks.....I'll stick with it.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by thefreepatriot


I didn't say he wrote the bill defcon 5 did .. perhaps your group should get your facts\story straight

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

So where does it say in all of this that conspiracy theorist talked the sentator into putting that word into the initial bill???

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No they are not to be trusted... but the fact that they would put it in the bill and call it BY name should be alarming to any logical person.... .lawmakers may be liars. but I doubt they are loonies, and make things up that don't exist for political purposes. What political purpose can you think of that making such a thing up would serve?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you are saying lawmakers are wrong\crazy and Chemtrails don't exist? if they don't exist then why would they be called out by the name in the initial HR-2977 bill

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CHEMTRAILS do exist lawmakers have named it

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 18-11-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Not cool

I don't give a rolling dougnut about "cool"....

I am concerned about the lack of reasoning skills exhibited by members of a forum that used to be known for good discussion and insightful comments.

Do you care to take a stab at working through the scenario I presented? The one about the futility in "hitting the target?" Maybe we should scale down the thought experiment a tad....huh? How 'bout, emptying a can of RAID! at the warning track of Wrigley Field, expecting to harm the mosquito sitting on home plate?

Yeah....chemtrail whacks.....I'll stick with it.





Resorting to make calling is usually a sign of vairious behavioural disorders. Perhaps you should learn to respecet fellow ats members and learn that you are now not a child. Even if you don't agree with someone that doesn't give you the right to resort to name calling. We respect ourselves on ATS even if we disagree.. I beleive ats has some rules about this behaviour..


[edit on 18-11-2008 by MrPenny]

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Not cool

I don't give a rolling dougnut about "cool"....

I am concerned about the lack of reasoning skills exhibited by members of a forum that used to be known for good discussion and insightful comments.

Do you care to take a stab at working through the scenario I presented? The one about the futility in "hitting the target?" Maybe we should scale down the thought experiment a tad....huh? How 'bout, emptying a can of RAID! at the warning track of Wrigley Field, expecting to harm the mosquito sitting on home plate?

Yeah....chemtrail whacks.....I'll stick with it.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by MrPenny]

Thats funny you are basing your scenario on the assumption that you know the target is a specific area.. ? how do you know that its a SPECIFIC area? how do you know its not meant for the entire populace ? if that is the case then why should wind currents matter?? me and you both do not know the target therefore I wll not make an assumption and neither should you......

reply to post by Phage


phage thank your for making such a nice bulletin for my points. I truly appreciate it! gave it a star!

[edit on 18-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by thefreepatriot


Don't you get dizzy?
Thinking in circles like that?

"Kucinich wrote a bill naming chemtrails"
"I didn't say he wrote the bill"
"Thanks for pointing out that he wrote the bill""

(paraphrased)

Originally posted by Essan
Okay, so chemtrails are real.

1) How can we recognise them?

2) Assuming we can see them, why?

3) What are they for?

I know answering questions is proving difficult for some people

But surely someone can offer something for us to discuss?

1) Abnormal traffic out of established flight paths, possibly not obeying normal civilian traffic rules. Confirmation but not identification from ATC. Thick trails that don't dissipate and actually expand into cloud cover. Particulate in rainfall after spraying. Brownish cloud cover resulting from heavy metal particulate in the atmosphere. People lieing about them on the internet.

2) Because you have eyes on your face and a brain to correlate data.

3) Ask the idiots laying them, since it's not an admitted technological endeavour and is shrouded in disinformation and lies how the hell do you honestly expect people who are denouncing the phenomenon to know what it really is? Still, there are people with strong hypothesis talking about this, and it usually comes down to faux global weather counters being used to disseminate toxic elements for population control and possibly supression. Agricultural sabotage is another strong hypothesis. And of course there is the supression of sunlight, which humans need to be healthy, as it burns out fungus and gives the body direct energy as well as being needed for the bodys biochemical and energetic balance. Low sunlight exposure explains high suicide rates in scandinavian countries for example, and I think there may be a chemtrail connection.
So my best guess is it is being done for a multiple of negative reasons, being hid from the idiots doing it by a positive pretext (global warming counter). And a guess is all you're entitled to, as it's probable not even the people actively doing this know the real reasons, due to compartmentalization and authoritive command structures, both in the military and the corporations envolved.

There you go, 3 questions, 3 answers.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

Don't you get dizzy?
Thinking in circles like that?

"Kucinich wrote a bill naming chemtrails"
"I didn't say he wrote the bill"
"Thanks for pointing out that he wrote the bill""

(paraphrased)

where exactly did I say that ?????

reply to post by Phage


.. Must be getting dizzy tying to pick this apart arent ya? Just to make it clear my response was to defcon 5 that stated a senator was convinced by conspiracy theorists to put the wording on that initial bill.. and I asked for references to this. and then you started quoting my answer to this as if I was SAYING THIS.. looks like your the one thats dizzy phage. Figure out what you are trying to accomplish and then get back to us.