Chemtrailers are People, Too.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by A boy in a dress

 

Lol, it's ok, I think this better remains a mystery.

I was just curious. I edited my post while you posted. I didn't mean to judge you or something.

Everybody gotta do what they gotta do.

Jeah, you can call me Point.

Cheers Point!
and I understand.
I posted that avatar to you and please enjoy.
I gotta go now... they've got me here in a small red-silk number,
the pots and pans are bubbling and the heat is intense.
Chow-lin has just walked in and....
you guys fill in the rest!
IT'S ON YOUR PROFILE SITE.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by A boy in a dress]

reply to post by A boy in a dress


Lol, that's awesome BIAD, I really lolled when I saw that.

Thanks that a really cool thing to do, I appreciate it.

I couldn't figure it out myself.

I don't know about the take no prisoners thing though, I don't want to be too cocky.

edit: Thanks again.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return

I re-jigged my posting above and you'll see I've sent your avatar
onwards.
I've gotta split, but I will return.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Point of No Return.....

Don't flatter yourself with BS.

OK, sorry…..I do tend to be a bit optimistic sometimes…..

I never ever claimed I believed in "chemtrails" and especially not with the intent of killing the worlds population.

Ummmmm…..yeah…..well…..maybe you didn’t……

I have made clear in previous threads, as well as this one, that my stance is more towards a weather modificiton program.

Well…..

That’s where it seems your position might have ”softened” just a teensy weensy little bit…..

The fact that I may argue certain points doesn't mean i actually have to believe in them.

I’m not sure how that works!

I just point out inconsistentcies and flaws where I see them in arguments.

Isn’t that called ”sitting on the fence?”

Doesn't really matter what side of the discussion they're from.

Well…..yes it does because 1 side is right & 1 side is wrong.

That's how I try to find truth.

And it’s working! That was my point in the 1st place…..you are starting to ”see the light!”

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

PS: I like your avatar…..why don’t you consider re-sizing it so we can see the whole thing? I can do that for you, if you like.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

That’s where it seems your position might have ”softened” just a teensy weensy little bit…..

No I haven't softened. I never was interested in the whole chemtrail thing until I started noticing the hazing of the sky myself.

It's just that we have a different understanding or explanation of the meaning of "chemtrail".

I’m not sure how that works!

Well, let's say I don't believe in chemtrails, and you say something to debunk them that has a flaw in it, I will point out that flaw, for the sake of the debate.

I understand the concept must be foreign to you.

Well…..yes it does because 1 side is right & 1 side is wrong.

So you don't care if false arguments are being used, as long as they support your side of the discussion.

What a shocker!

And it’s working! That was my point in the 1st place…..you are starting to ”see the light!”

Dream on, oh radiant one.

PS: I like your avatar…..why don’t you consider re-sizing it so we can see the whole thing? I can do that for you, if you like.

Thanks for the offer, but I already got a boy in a dress helping me out.

Thanks anyways.

I don’t know what I must think of those chemtrails, if it really happens, and if so for what reason or reasons are they been used then.

But I find this is an interesting video with some quite remarkable footage, but nevertheless perhaps easy to explain.

Most likely it is already posted on ATS but I could not find it so far.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Let me tell you how it works when you post on a Chemtrail thread.
I won't mention any names...but, the "boys" (and the occasional girl) show up and tell you that it is a load of crap.
It is simply unacceptable for you to differ in opinion, if you actually believe it is unusual and you dare to question it.
You will be grouped with the "minority" that questions, though I find it telling that the "minority" gets far more stars!
I suspect that the more intelligent among us has decided the "boys" either cannot (incapable, idealistic, sheeple types...) accept the fact that other intelligent people could come to a different conclusion, or they are just doing their job.
Either way, I for one have hesitated coming here, but I was curious as to how this "thread" was progressing. If it were a basketball game, I would say,
Chemtrailers 86, Denialists 64.

I think that is fair.

Edit to add: "and the occasional girl" (OR girls can be sheeple too), however the dear reader wants to interpret.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by Stewie]

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Let me tell you how it works when you post on a Chemtrail thread.

Thanks for your reply Stewie.

reply to post by Stewie


I do see where you're coming from... (that's how I always
begin!)... it isn't a concern of mine IF the governments or
secret agencies are flooding the skies with mind-altering
chemicals or are attempting to change weather conditions.

I know the above statement may seem trifle... (mmmm, trifle)
but IF it's happening, then it's been going on for years and I
honestly can't see it's effects.

Surely... (no I won't say it)... someone from the 'mainstream'
media would have ran with this and it would have blossomed
into a world-shattering story, but it seems they haven't.

Now... to make a good trifle, you need four key ingredients,
One:... OFF TOPIC BIAD, get a grip.

Originally posted by Stewie
Let me tell you how it works when you post on a Chemtrail thread.
I won't mention any names...but, the "boys" show up and tell you that it is a load of crap.

Yeah, well, sometimes a girl shows up too to say that "chemtrails is a lood of crap...

@spacevisitor: I admit I didn't watch the whole video you posted, the combination of the awful music and the paranoia was a bit too much for me, but I noticed that in the beginning it showed "broken" contrails. And there is nothing sinister going on there, no aerosol mode off or on, no valves fully open or shut...

These broken contrails are simply caused by different layers in the air with different humidity and temperature.

The amount of water in the exhaust is pretty constant, but the amount of moisture in the air is not. The humidity varies with altitude, and a layer of low humidity can be sandwiched between two layers of high humidity. As a plane climbs or descends through this layer, then the trail will only form in the areas of high humidity, and so look like it was “switched off” in the area of low humidity.

You can get the same effect with temperature. A warm layer of air can actually lay on top of a colder layer in what is called an “inversion” (you’ll hear this on the weather sometimes, referred to as an “inversion layer”). When a plane flies through this inversion layer, the trail can be “broken”.

Learn more here (and please click the link!):
contrailscience.com...

This page also shows you some pictures often used by chemtrailers to "prove" their theories, and here you can find out what the pics really show. Please click this link too, and educate yourself:
contrailscience.com...

Hope this helps explain at least a few things so you don't get caught up in the "chemtrail" scam.

reply to post by A boy in a dress

Lad,
If I may be so bold sir (from "The Shining", I always liked that), perhaps you put a bit too much faith in the MSM. They are OWNED you know. Sure, sometimes a weather man slips (damn chemtrails spoiled my forecast) and it makes the internet, how many times does a weatherman slip and it doesn't?
If it were not for the internet, how little would we know now? Of course, we have to sort through the garbage with the internet, but with the MSM it could be said,
IT IS ALL GARBAGE.
Or, at least, not the WHOLE truth, and nothing but.
Anyway, keep the mind open, and take out the trash occasionally.

reply to post by ziggystar60

I fixed my gaffe, let me know,
what you think, (2 lines, whoa.)

Edit to make poem:


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Stewie]

reply to post by ziggystar60

These broken contrails are simply caused by different layers in the air with different humidity and temperature.

The planes were flying level, they weren't passing through different air layers.

Or these air layers must be vertical.

If you had watched the whole movie, wich was too "paranoid' for ya, conveniently, you would've seen the footage of a jet spraying broken "contrails" from one side of the plane while the other side was constant.

I don't think the plane was flying with one engine in one air layer, and with the other engine in another.

Also, how do you explain how one engine can leave two seperate trails?

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by A boy in a dress

 

Lad,
If I may be so bold sir (from "The Shining", I always liked that), .

..."And I have your word on that, Mr. Torrence?"

I agree, the world is as big as it's always been and I know
it seem to be disagreeable to use the word 'peddling' when we
discuss the pros and cons of whether our Governments... I can't
be bothered to say it again!

I like to attempt to see how this belief has been built up...
I don't believe in it.

"I had to... correct her as well, Sir" -Wilmots Guide To Having A
Wonderful Relationship. SAUCE.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by A boy in a dress]

reply to post by Point of No Return



Well, THAT video has been introduced to these ATS threads, numerous times. I sat through it (with the sound off, mercifully)...

(Sorry took so long to respond...wow!! People gave you stars, and most of what you said was incorrect (?) Hmmmm....)

It opens with what is obvious (to me, and anyone else who's passingly familar with airline paint schemes) a Virgin Atlantic airliner...it's not a B-747, can tell by shape and arrangement...so, by process of elimination, it's an Airbus A340. (Four engines, and knowing the fleet mix of airplane types, at Virgin).

Now, PONR you CANNOT tell, from that video footage, this:

were flying level, they weren't passing through different air layers.

THIS IS WHAT we're all trying to educate people about, here.

The airplanes, all of them, could be climbing as they were filmed..

But, you're on to something here, just not exactly:

Or these air layers must be vertical.

No...but not perfectly flat, and level either. The airmasses can be very complex, in form.

If you could see them in cross-section (and if the gaseous water vapor were visible) you would see them appear as a sort of "strata"....think of sedimentary rock deposits on Earth, that have been broken, bent, twisted, exposed in corss-section...they are a "frozen in time" example, whereas the airmass is dynamic, and ever-changing. Fluid, actually.

If you had watched the whole movie... conveniently, you would've seen the footage of a jet spraying broken "contrails" from one side of the plane while the other side was constant.

I think you're referring to about 3:30, I saw the B-737 left engine showing an irregular "puffiness" as the contrials formed behind it. Again, it is rare (mostly) but is just showing the relative humidity and varying boundary layers...even, YES, there can be a somewhat 'vertical' boundary between air of differing moisture amount, and disposition.

I don't think the plane was flying with one engine in one air layer, and with the other engine in another.

An example, like that shown, IS rare, and wouldn't last long...note the clip's length. Keep in mind that some people (who desperately seem to need a better 'hobby') must spend an inordinate amount of time filming, then editing down to just a few seconds' worth of what they think is "interesting" footage...

Also, how do you explain how one engine can leave two seperate trails?

Ah....the one at about 4:30?? THAT one is interesting....the oddness of the contrail shape is intriguing, but it certainly doesn't indicate any intentional "spraying"....it is smiply an odd effect, and I'll look into it.

I noticed that a few OTHER clips weren't mentioned.... but, I've poinbted them out, before. They are inlcuded in the video, and by that action prominently display the video maker/poster's ignorance about airplanes.

At 1:30, the 'puffs' seeming to come from the center fuselage area? That is merely water being dumped overboard. (And/or coffee, other beverages...)

Commercial jets do NOT have a "gray water" holding system, like (if you're familiar) is the case with boats). The "blue water" chemicals in the toilets, THAT is contained, and dumped/serviced on the ground.

ALL of the lavatory sink drains, and each galley drain, are routed to pipes that lead to one or more "drain masts" on the belly of the airplane. Note: These masts are electrically heated, to prevent water ice build up at the exit point.

At 5:20, I wrote a note, but can't remember what I meant to say...

At 9:00....looks like a weather balloon, not sure WHY they included that (?)

Finally, at 10:15 it is obviously a fuel dump (technical term is "jettison") procedure in progress. NOT all commercial airliners have this capability. Generally, for airplanes being built now, it is usually found only on wide bodies. Fuel jettison is ONLY used to lower the weight to a MAX landing weight, IF there is a need, for emergency or operational reasons, to return for landing shortly after takeoff, AND the takeoff weight exceeds the MAX GLW. (On wide bodies this can be a tremendous weight difference...on narrow bodies, not so much...so we just perform an "overweight" landing, per captain's Emergency Authority provisions).

Here, example from INSIDE (A Continental B-777, returning due to a passenger's medical emergency):




Here's another 777 (looks like an Asian carrier livery) that had to return at Sea-Tac for engine problems:



Here's a B-747-400, dumping...note the placement of the jettision nozzles, and the difference between airplane models:



There is ONE nozzle on each wing. They are placed sufficiently outboard of the engines, for safety.

The 'dump rate' varies by airplane...since I know the B-767, I can tell you it is ~4,500 pounds per minute, and it can only 'dump' from the Center fuel tank. MAX capacity for Center tank is ~80,000 pounds. So, at most, would be less than 20 minutes to empty the tank...( but, not even neccessary, only dump as much as needed to get down to landing weight...that FUEL is darned expensive!! )



[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ziggystar60


What's this? Chicks stating that chemtrails are... I won't say that word.
Sheesh!
Can you provide images?, so that we can see what sort of... no, I won't
say it?

I for one will not be ordering my 2010-11 'Ziggystar60' calendar for
next year or even the year after, which is convenient, 'cos John Cusack
says it ends then.

Wait a moment... I'm off topic again?

reply to post by weedwhacker


There seems to be quite a lot of 'chemtrail-like' footage here:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by A boy in a dress

Star for signature.
(remember your buds....)

reply to post by weedwhacker

Well, THAT video has been introduced to these ATS threads, numerous times. I sat through it (with the sound off, mercifully)...

Jeah, I know you are familiar with every piece of evidence brought forth, and off course it was always already debunked.

It opens with what is obvious (to me, and anyone else who's passingly familar with airline paint schemes) a Virgin Atlantic airliner...it's not a B-747, can tell by shape and arrangement...so, by process of elimination, it's an Airbus A340. (Four engines, and knowing the fleet mix of airplane types, at Virgin).

Good chap! Why are you telling me this, I didn't post the vid, and I didn't claim anything about the type of plane.

THIS IS WHAT we're all trying to educate people about, here. The airplanes, all of them, could be climbing as they were filmed...(brb)

Jeah, I don't think so. You think they were climbing so much that they cut through different air layers at two second intervals, switching between contrail and no contrail, with one engine doing that, and one engine leaving a constant contrail?

I don't think so. What about cruise altitude?

Once you're up there I don't think you keep changing altitude all the time, or do you mister fly guy?

What about the engine that left 2 seperate contrails?

Why didn't you respond to these points?

Also, I'm a bit dissapointed you haven't responded to the claims I made in my reply at OZWeatherman, I was disputing your claims there.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Please review the REST of my post, after I said I'd "brb" (That's "be right back")....


ALL of your concerns were addressed. Oh, and I pointed out certain aspects of the video, the details...BECAUSE (and I know that YOU didn't post it) OTHER people are reading this, too...I'm not doing this solely for your benefit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

eta....that "video" again....it is incredibly laughable to anyone knowledgeable about airplanes...the attempt to imply "turning on and off" the contrails.

It shows contrails...."trailing" directly behind the engines, just as you expect them to, because it's the HOT ENGINE EXHAUST gases that cause their formation.

[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]