Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Mathias,

I don't think anyone is saying it's not POSSIBLE, the impression I get is that, on the one side, you believe it is a constant on all commercial flights for some nefarious purpose (I dont know but can venture a guess, maybe some "dumbing down" of the people for some reason?).

The alternate side is saying, sure it can happen. But you have to admit something, when you talk TESTING, what does that really prove? We test lots of things. We test nuclear weaponry...but we dont strap them to 767's and release them periodically during flight.

So, I don't know about anyone else, but are you trying to prove the EXISTENCE of a conspiracy to do this? Or the fact that it can be done?

I, for one do not doubt it can be done, just that there is a conspiracy in place regularly doing so.

reply to post by alphabetaone


I haven't said that this is being done by all commercial aircraft. I don't believe that it is. I think it's mostly done by military and private contractors. I don't know where you got that idea..

I also haven't said that chemtrails are being used for nefarious purposes. They do however have a negative effect on health and the environment. I believe that most of use of chemtrails are for scientific studies of weather and the atmosphere..

If it weren't for the amount of secrecy and attempts to cover-up this conspiracy, I think most people wouldn't be as upset that it is happening. The public should be well informed and the decisions surrounding this topic should be made in a more democratic way.

If you look back at the debunkers on ATS they deny everything. They omit the truth. The only time they supply correct information is when there is no chance of revealing any detail of the conspiracy. They deny field testing is being done. They try to deny the existence of the equipment. They deny it all. They even deny facts that they know are true until they get proven wrong. Then they never even admit they were wrong. They just go to a different thread and start lying about the same facts as if they had never seen the evidence.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I didn't make an assertion, I was asking if that was how you viewed it.

So, let me just make sure this time I'm asking the right question...you believe that due to Military and their subcontractors testing, (which are being performed sporadically) are causing negative health effects?

Does that sound about right?

Edited to add: and it's being covered=up?

reply to post by alphabetaone


Yes, that would be an accurate statement.

But not limited to that alone. There are many types of chemtrails

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

Yes, that would be an accurate statement.

But not limited to that alone. There are many types of chemtrails

Ok and thats fine, I want to take one problem at a time and tackle it.

Now, in that first video that I responded to....the two trails that (I believe tecmute) was asking how one could make the determination between the 2.

Well, based upon what you just said, one of the glaringly missing elements in the video, is, what caused one of those trails. A commercial jet is shown nicely flying at a high altitude, but the closer perspective trail, there is not a jet/plane to be found that caused it.... so in that video, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to some determination on what it even IS with any level of certainty, nevermind if they are of the same composition....all mathematics aside, in THIS case only, that video is useless.

reply to post by alphabetaone


The video is absolutely not useless and there are literally hundreds more just like it showing planes flying in the same air space, one leaving the smokey looking huge spreading trail and the other leaving either no trail or only the quickly disapating vapor trail.

We can debate this all day, go round and round and round, and still be at the starting point with neither 'side' having 'proved' anything other than 'possibilities'.

In the end though while it can't (yet) be conclusively shown whether the difference is in the chemical makeup of the exhuast vs. the difference in atmospheric conditions we can say one thing:

If all planes followed whatever it was that the planes leaving the quickly dispating contrails did then we wouldn't be having these white outs and massive 'pollution' clouds blocking out sunlight. It IS possible for planes to fly and not pollute the sky with these nasty looking huge spreading trails, many videos clearly show this, if we can watch planes leaving no trails, fly CLOSE to planes leaving a night and day different polluting trail then people should be demanding that all planes do this. Clearly it seems there is little political will to stops planes blocking out the sun and affecting weather patterns (if only by default) at the least we can say it is INTENTIIONAL because it could easily be stopped and it isn't.

To each their own too, but IMO it is extremely naive to believe with the numbers of white papers on atmospheric mod., with the huge amount of geoengineering discussion, with what we can logically surmize about the military's desires to control all theaters of operation, with the patents like Eastlund's that we can read, etc. etc. that everybody is just talking about it but nobody is doing it. This IMO defies logic and historical knowldege regarding similar programs, though I realize nothing but actual atmospheric samples will ever be enough 'proof' for those who need to be told by 'officials' it is happening before they can ever accept what seems so blatantly obvious to so many of the rest of us.

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

The video is absolutely not useless and there are literally hundreds more just like it showing planes flying in the same air space, one leaving the smokey looking huge spreading trail and the other leaving either no trail or only the quickly disapating vapor trail.

Yes, it IS absolutely useless. I dont care about the hundreds of others that show anything at all.

THAT video is absolutely useless for proving anything in this discussion. That was my point, and frankly, that is a fact. Nothing can be "proven" with that video and that leaves nothing open for conjecture.

You're welcome to formulate whatever opinion you want abut the video, but it is simply that opinion. The only fact that CAN be derived from it, is that NO facts can be derived from it....rendering it useless in how the question was posed.

The video clearly shows one thing and that is that a plane is flying leaving only a vapor trail, while *something else* left a huge smokey looking spreading trail. And too you ignored the most important part of my reply:

If all planes followed whatever it was that the planes leaving the quickly dispating contrails did then we wouldn't be having these white outs and massive 'pollution' clouds blocking out sunlight. It IS possible for planes to fly and not pollute the sky with these nasty looking huge spreading trails, many videos clearly show this, if we can watch planes leaving no trails, fly CLOSE to planes leaving a night and day different polluting trail then people should be demanding that all planes do this. Clearly it seems there is little political will to stops planes blocking out the sun and affecting weather patterns (if only by default) at the least we can say it is INTENTIIONAL because it could easily be stopped and it isn't.

To each their own too, but IMO it is extremely naive to believe with the numbers of white papers on atmospheric mod., with the huge amount of geoengineering discussion, with what we can logically surmize about the military's desires to control all theaters of operation, with the patents like Eastlund's that we can read, etc. etc. that everybody is just talking about it but nobody is doing it. This IMO defies logic and historical knowldege regarding similar programs, though I realize nothing but actual atmospheric samples will ever be enough 'proof' for those who need to be told by 'officials' it is happening before they can ever accept what seems so blatantly obvious to so many of the rest of us.

reply to post by Tecumte


I ignored "the most important part" because to YOU, it is the most important part.

As I recall it, you asked for PROOF that the video can be debunked as being other than what you were claiming. Neither one of us can debunk or BUNK anything for that matter, based upon video that is subjective. Anyone making arguments for a topic is full aware of that with a complete cognizance of the constraints of video.

Tell you what, instead, bring a video with scientists that have gas chromatographs in hand, showing defined CLEAN baselines before sampling particles of the surrounding environment, the results, and a clear chemical composition that substantiates your position OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THAT VIDEO, and I will gladly concede to 2 things... that 1) you presented a video that isnt useless and 2) that you were right about your conviction.

Otherwise, it IS useless and neither one of us can prove anything.

Originally posted by Tecumte
The video clearly shows one thing and that is that a plane is flying leaving only a vapor trail, while *something else* left a huge smokey looking spreading trail. And too you ignored the most important part of my reply:

If all planes followed whatever it was that the planes leaving the quickly dispating contrails did then we wouldn't be having these white outs and massive 'pollution' clouds blocking out sunlight. It IS possible for planes to fly and not pollute the sky with these nasty looking huge spreading trails, many videos clearly show this, if we can watch planes leaving no trails, fly CLOSE to planes leaving a night and day different polluting trail then people should be demanding that all planes do this. Clearly it seems there is little political will to stops planes blocking out the sun and affecting weather patterns (if only by default) at the least we can say it is INTENTIIONAL because it could easily be stopped and it isn't.
.

Your logical is entirely backwards and actually harmful..

You would rather have the planes sandwiched into lower altitudes where contrails would be much less likely to persist. That would wreck the air traffic control system among other things...

However, you are missing one major aspect. Whether a plane is making contrails at its altitude or not, they are all still resulting in engine emissions. Just because you can not see it with prominent contrail, does not mean it is somehow gliding along with its engines off.

And here is the more ironic aspect. By forcing planes to go lower, you are increasing fuel burn, and therefore INCREASING pollution, not decreasing it. Planes will have longer flights, more fuel burns, more delays on the ground from more less usable airspace, resulting in more ground level pollution too.

Aircraft in high altitude cruise, even if making large contrails, are at their more efficient phase of flight. And jet engines really like cold thin air for efficiency too. So your idea that if we bring all the aircraft to whatever altitude will not make big contrails, results in more actual pollution, more delays, more fuel burned.

So sure, we may have less persistent contrails, but at the cost of more pollution, more expensive tickets and less safety. Would you rather have family members flying in less of a safe airspace that is more crowded, just for contrail control?

You seem to be using sophistry to try and persuade that planes can't fly and only leave a vapor trail though we clearly see they do this routinely often flying though the huge messes left by the planes leaving the huge smokey looking vapor trails. If we were only talking about dropping a couple of thousand feet and only when there is little danger from other planes then wouldn't it be worth it to not have our sun blocked out horizon to horizon by this speading mess.

Again though we're going round and round, your assertion that the night and day difference in a typical vapor trail vs a pollution trail is due mainly to a difference in altitude is far from proven as far as the specific video we watched and the hundreds more like it. I have little doubt if the intent was to keep our skies clear and not clouded up with this vast mess of nasty pollution we have the technology and means to do it and in a safe and fuel efficient way.

What we're really witnessing IMO is INTENTIONAL use of aerosols and particulates to alter weather. That's really why we see what we're seeing, no point in going on and on and on though, I think I fully understand your opoinion I simply disagree with your assessment.

reply to post by Tecumte


You don't see most pollution trails tho - that was FP's point.

Aircraft burn a LOT more gas taking off and in climb than in cruise - and typically you don't see that pollution.

But it's still there.

visiblility of the trail is completely irrelevant to the non-visual pollution being generated.

reply to post by badw0lf


Well it seems it is allowed now, the OP can set a rule, and any opposing opinions will be deleted by MODS, as proved by the good police thread.... I don't agree with the position, I think this stance will give mods 100 times more work, going through all the off topic post reports, but to each their own I guess.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

What do you have to say about the use of sulfur-hexa-flouride as an atmospheric tracer?

so notchemtrails from commercial aircraft then.

What about hygroscopic salts in an aqueous solution sprayed into the atmosphere for cloud seeding?

Rainmaking - well known, not secret, still not chemtrails at 30,000 feet

And what about atmospheric barium releases ?

They are put into an aerosol generator and injected into the atmosphere from exterior nozzles on planes.

Really?

I've seen plenty of papers about them being shot high into the atmosphere and lower reaches of space, nothing at all about them being sparyed from aircraft, nor anything about the aerosol generator of patent fame ever actually being used - did I miss something?

But still not chemtrails at 30,0000 feet

Then we have the use of chaff for atmospheric studies also.

Yeah - so still not chemtrails at 30,000 feet.

They are all being used and are all part of what people call chemtrails.

Are they used to geo-engineer anything? Are they affecting global warming? Are they designed to poison us, or to amplify HAARP, or to spread aluminium to make Monsanto moreprofitable?

What is it that you think is wrong with these well known and not-secret applications?

AFAIK only you call them chemtrails - pretty much everyone else thinks chemtrails are the trails from high flying aircraft that can spread out to cover a sky with high cloud - which none of these resemble in any way, shape or form.

And why didn't you include firefighting, air show trails, space shuttle (and other rocket) launches, and agricultural spraying?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

What do you have to say about the use of sulfur-hexa-flouride as an atmospheric tracer?

What about hygroscopic salts in an aqueous solution sprayed into the atmosphere for cloud seeding?

And what about atmospheric barium releases ?

They are put into an aerosol generator and injected into the atmosphere from exterior nozzles on planes. Then we have the use of chaff for atmospheric studies also. They are all being used and are all part of what people call chemtrails.

Let's see here sulfur hexa flouride..

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, non-toxic and non-flammable greenhouse gas. SF6 has an octahedral geometry, consisting of six fluorine atoms attached to a central sulfur atom. It is a hypervalent molecule. Typical for a nonpolar gas, it is poorly soluble in water but soluble in nonpolar organic solvents. It is generally transported as a liquefied compressed gas. It has a density of 6.12 g/L at sea level conditions, which is considerably higher than the density of air

Here is a little more for you..

Tracer compound

Sulfur hexafluoride was the tracer gas used in the first roadway air dispersion model calibration; this research program was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted in Sunnyvale, California on U.S. Highway 101.[3] Gaseous SF6 is an ongoing commonly used tracer gas for use in short-term experiments of ventilation efficiency in buildings and indoor enclosures, and for determining infiltration rates.

Two major factors recommend its use: Its concentration can be measured with satisfactory accuracy at very low concentrations, and the Earth's atmosphere has a negligible concentration of SF6. Sulfur hexafluoride was used as a harmless test gas in an experiment at St John's Wood tube station in London, United Kingdom on 25 March 2007.[4]
The gas was released throughout the station, and monitored as it drifted around. The purpose of the experiment, which had been announced earlier in March by the Secretary of State for Transport Douglas Alexander, was to investigate how toxic gas might spread throughout London Underground stations and buildings during a terrorist attack. It has been used successfully as a tracer in oceanography to study diapycnal mixing and air-sea gas exchange.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again impeccable research...

Lets see here hygroscopic salts...

Hygroscopic Cloud Seeding

The term “hygroscopic seeding” has been associated with warm cloud seeding. The objective is to enhance rainfall by promoting the coalescence process using hygroscopic salt nuclei generated by pyrotechnic flares or a fine spray of a highly concentrated salt solution. In addition, Cooper et al. (1997) illustrated that hygroscopic seeding might have a beneficial effect on precipitation development through either of two distinct mechanisms: introduction of embryos on which raindrops form; or broadening of the initial droplet size distribution resulting in acceleration of all stages of the coalescence process.

In 1990, G. Mather reported a case of inadvertent seeding of clouds by hygroscopic particles emitted from a Kraft paper mill in South Africa that resulted in enhanced coalescence and rainfall. This observation led to further hygroscopic cloud seeding experiments in South Africa, (Mather et al, 1997), Thailand (Silverman and Sukarnjanaset, 2000), Mexico (Bruintjes et al., 2001, Fowler et al., 2001) and India (Murty et al., 2000) with highly encouraging results. Additional experiments have been conducted more recently in Texas using powdered salt having particle diameters of 2 to 5 microns.

www.just-clouds.com...

Hygroscopic Seeding

As noted in Cotton and Pielke (1995) the dominant process for precipitation formation in warm clouds is collision and coalescence. We have seen that this process is very effective in clouds which are warm-based and maritime, or have substantial liquid water contents. The collision and coalescence process among liquid drops is also an important contributor to rain formation in many mixed-phase clouds, and the presence of supercooled drizzle-drops and raindrops enhances the rate of formation of precipitation in supercooled portions of clouds as well.
One method of seeding clouds to enhance precipitation is to introduce hygroscopic particles (salts) which readily take on water by vapor deposition in a supersaturated cloudy environment. The conventional approach is to produce ground salt particles in the size-range of 5-100 , and release these particles into the base of clouds. These particles grow by vapor deposition and readily reach sizes of 25 to 30 in diameter or greater. They are then large enough to serve as ``coalescence'' embryos and initiate or participate in rain formation by collision and coalescence.
Cotton and Pielke (1995) reviewed the various physical and statistical experiments that have been carried out over the years. The results of the statistical experiments were generally inconclusive though some suggested positive effects. Observational and modeling studies provide further support that at least in some clouds, the addition of hygroscopic seeding material can broaden drop-spectra and at least hasten the onset of precipitation formation.
We concluded that `` there appears to be a real opportunity to enhance rainfall through hygroscopic seeding in some clouds. It has not been determined how open the `window of opportunity' actually is. In warm-based, maritime clouds the rate of natural production of rainfall may be so great that there is little opportunity to beat nature at its own game. On the other hand, some cold-based continental clouds may have so many small droplets that seeding-produced big drops cannot collect them owing to very small collection efficiencies. Thus there probably exists a spectrum of clouds between these two extreme types that have enough liquid water to support a warm cloud precipitation process that can be accelerated by hygroscopic seeding.

The problem is ``to identify those clouds, and deliver the right amount of seeding material to them at the right time.'' As optimism for significant precipitation enhancement by static seeding of supercooled clouds has waned, enthusiasm for the potential of hygroscopic seeding has grown. Two ongoing research programs, one in Thailand, the other in South Africa, have contributed to that enthusiasm. The South African experiment was motivated by a report by Mather (1991) which suggested that large liquid raindrops at -10C found in a cumulonimbus were the result of active coalescence processes caused by the effluent from a Kraft paper mill. Earlier, Hobbs et al. (1970) found that the effluent from paper mills can be rich in cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Moreover, Hindman et al. (1977a,b) found paper pulp mill effluent to have high concentrations of large and ultra-giant hygroscopic particles, which is consistent with the idea that the paper pulp mill effectively ``seeded'' the storm. Another reason for optimism is that Mather et al. (1996b) applied a pyrotechnic method of delivering salt, based on a fog dispersal method developed by Hindman (1978). This reduced a number of technical difficulties associated with preparing, handling, and delivery of very corrosive salt particles.

rams.atmos.colostate.edu...

Still haven't found where this stuff is put into the atmosphere, how about a link?

Post some pics of the planes with chemtrail nozzles? I won't even worry about the last 2 because you seem to not understand what you post because everything you are saying about these being chemtrails is an outright fabrication, again.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I am echoing, for you, the very last bits, at the bottom....I noted the "[ /ex]" BBcode tags were off, so this is how it should have displayed:


('quote' code left off, it looks better) ----

......Another reason for optimism is that Mather et al. (1996b) applied a pyrotechnic method of delivering salt, based on a fog dispersal method developed by Hindman (1978). This reduced a number of technical difficulties associated with preparing, handling, and delivery of very corrosive salt particles.

rams.atmos.colostate.edu...

Still haven't found where this stuff is put into the atmosphere, how about a link?

Post some pics of the planes with chemtrail nozzles? I won't even worry about the last 2 because you seem to not understand what you post because everything you are saying about these being chemtrails is an outright fabrication, again.

---(/end quoted post).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks, I don't know what happened there, but I just cannot get how someone only sees what he wants.Some of the research from certain members(mattie (cough) that he thinks helps him actually hurts him because the instead of reading what he wants to post he just throws it against the wall and whatever sticks he posts.

He does make for some interesting reading for sure.

Well off to work will be back later to get my daily chuckle from him and his research.

Not to mention, the whole idea of a "Tracer" is that it is highly detectable even when used in extremely low amounts, and is inert - in other words, it does not affect anything at all in the scientific experiment.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



Air Weather Service was created in 1937 and is now know as, of 1997, Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) are the command and control structure of Chemtrails and Weather Modification

Save the documents before they are deleted. They have been doing it for over 50 years. They put chaff and other radar tracers in it so they can trace the Chemtrails on radar. Remember that! Only the military can perform this type of operation. Please read the documents listed below to understand it.

Technical Report 177 An Introduction to Weather Modification

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0696619

The Air Weather Service mission includes the field testing and operational application of weather-modification techniques.

1999: A review of Cloud Seeding Experiments to Enhance Percipitation and Some New Prospects

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.5373&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Substantial work has also been conducted in the past 10 years regarding the dispersion and transport of seeding material in both convective and orographic clouds.

The use of tracer material to tag a seeded region has been particularly helpful in this effort. The two tracer materials that are used most often are chaff and SF6. Both materials could be released from either the air or the surface.

The dispersion and transport of the chaff is monitored by radar, while the detection of the SF6 is usually conducted with aircraft equipped to detect it at very low concentrations. (Stith et al. 1990; Klimowski et al. 1998).

1980 State Water Survey Division ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES SECTION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: CRITERIA FOR WEATHER MODIFICATION OPERATIONS AND EFFECTIVE EVALUATION

www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR-240.pdf

D. Designation of cloud treatment techniques.

1. Seeding agent(s) to be employed.

2. Method of transfer to clouds (aircraft, ground generators, or others).

3. Location of seeding in cloud (base, mid-level, top, other).

4. Method of dispersal into cloud (Agl generator, flares, rockets, dry ice dispenser, etc.).

5. Time(s) of day seeding is to be performed (if selective).

6. Duration of seeding in each operation.

E. Requirements for facilities and equipment.
1. Operational center.
2. Meteorological equipment.
3. Aircraft.
4. Ground generators.
5. Seeding devices.

F. Personnel.
1. M e t e o r o l o g i s t ( s ) .
2. A i r c r a ft crew.
3. I n s t r ume nt t e c h n i c i a ns and o b s e r v e r s.

G. Measurements to be made.
1. Meteorological.
2. Aircraft.
3. Radar.
4. Other.

Internet Trolls and Chemtrail sprayers... Besides if it is good for us why don't you let us know. Unless... you have something to hide...

Keep spraying and I will keep posting. Note taken: I guess you do work on the weekends....

reply to post by firepilot


Read my post. You get it!