Its happend before, so why not now?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

You have used a portion of description of a "chemtrail". You are not using the part of the description which makes them "uncharacteristic". You deliberately avoid using part of the description by which "chemtrails" are distinquished from contrails

Proponents of chemtrails characterize these chemical trails as streams that persist for hours, and by their criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds.

en.wikipedia.org...

You have redefined "chemtrail".

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

You have used a portion of description of a "chemtrail". You are not using the part of the description which makes them "uncharacteristic". You deliberately avoid using part of the description by which "chemtrails" are distinquished from contrails

Proponents of chemtrails characterize these chemical trails as streams that persist for hours, and by their criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds.

en.wikipedia.org...

WOW, they are "streams that persist for hours". Very discriptive!

Wait, were did it say contrail?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

"Chemtrail" believers don't believe in persistent contrails. That is a description of a "chemtrail". That is what believers claim makes them "uncharacteristic".

You have provided no evidence that the cold war tests bore any resemblance to "chemtrails" in appearance or behavior.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

"Chemtrail" believers don't believe in persistent contrails. That is a description of a "chemtrail". That is what believers claim makes them "uncharacteristic".

This sounds like your opinion so unless you so me a link to something a little more official thats what it is.

Originally posted by Phage
You have provided no evidence that the cold war tests bore any resemblance to "chemtrails" in appearance or behavior.

edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well, you can be part of the selective group that believes the US army is a bunch of deadheads and failed to do high altitude testing when they were doing bio warfare tests. You can also be part of the group that assumes water mixed with ecoli wouldn't freeze at high altitude

Still assuming chemtrails have to exhibit a specific appearance and behaviour? Or is it possible only some think thats the case?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

"Chemtrail" believers don't believe in persistent contrails. That is a description of a "chemtrail". That is what believers claim makes them "uncharacteristic".

This sounds like your opinion so unless you so me a link to something a little more official thats what it is.

Er, will this do?

educate-yourself.org...



Obviously that's as 'official' as you'll get.

Well, you can be part of the selective group that believes the US army is a bunch of deadheads and failed to do high altitude testing when they were doing bio warfare tests.

Because high altitude testing would be pointless, since chemical weapons are typically be released at ground level or low altitudes, from bombs, artillery, or missile warheads.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

This sounds like your opinion so unless you so me a link to something a little more official thats what it is.

It's not just my opinion. It's what the source you used says.

You can also be part of the group that assumes water mixed with ecoli wouldn't freeze at high altitude

What high altitude tests used e. coli?

Originally posted by firepilot
Because high altitude testing would be pointless, since chemical weapons are typically be released at ground level or low altitudes, from bombs, artillery, or missile warheads.

Already busted that favourite theory of debunkers on this thread.

The Prospects for Successful
Air-Defense Against Chemically-Armed
Tactical Ballistic Missile
Attacks on Urban Areas

THEODORE A. POSTOL
March 1991
DEFENSE AND ARMS CONTROL STUDIES PROGRAM

Center for International Studies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

However, since the air temperature at higher altitudes can be as low as -70 °
Fahrenheit, it is likely that dispersal of chemicals at these altitudes would result in the
formation of considerably larger aerosol particles that would fall at still higher rates.
These particles would initially be frozen (rather than being a liquid that suffers
evaporation as at lower altitudes) until they drop below about 2 kilometers altitude.
Since the cloud of large particles (of diameters perhaps of thousands of Am) would fall
quite fast (perhaps 10 or more m/sec), it would likely be distributed in a column of air
of only a few kilometers altitude. In a wind field of .9 m/sec, such a cloud could deposit
a large fraction of its total chemical content on the ground over a downwind distance of
several kilometers.

Source

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Bzzzzt. It's a theory on paper, high altitude spraying has never been documented to occur. Better luck next time.

ETA: Not to mention it isn't even talking about SPRAYING on the people below.

ETA2: You should probably read the rest of the article, too, instead of continually reposting the same excerpt.

You're really showing off that aspect of credibility that is so prevalent in the chemmie community.


Oh, wow. The source is talking about what would occur if a missile carrying biological agents was destroyed at high altitude. You really should read it, it doesn't support your claims in the least!

Originally posted by Phage
It's not just my opinion. It's what the source you used says.

To be specific its said proponents believe that. That doesn't cover every proponent of chemtrails obviously since I think contrails are just contrails.

What high altitude tests used e. coli?

edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

This is a huge thread, most of which you haven't read I'm sure, and the info is here. Feel free to look for it yourself because I have already posted it and won't do so again. Ecoli is just one of the admitted tests. You could also use bacillus globigii mixed with water if you like.

Originally posted by adeclerk

Oh, wow. The source is talking about what would occur if a missile carrying biological agents was destroyed at high altitude.

You really should read it, it doesn't support your claims in the least!

edit on 6/15/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

You're sure getting desperate.

Don't intentionally misinterprete the meaning of my post. Firepilot stated high altitude chemical dispersion is useless. This report, by someone much smarter than you I'm sure, clearly states otherwise.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk

Oh, wow. The source is talking about what would occur if a missile carrying biological agents was destroyed at high altitude.

You really should read it, it doesn't support your claims in the least!

edit on 6/15/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

You're sure getting desperate.

Don't intentionally misinterprete the meaning of my post. Firepilot stated high altitude chemical dispersion is useless. This report, by someone much smarter than you I'm sure, clearly states otherwise.

Does it?

For example, a cloud of very widely different particle sizes created at high altitudes by a successful intercept could potentially become so dispersed as it falls that the biological hazard from it would be greatly reduced by the time it reached the ground.

Should probably read a source and not go by the excerpt the 'chemtrail' sites show. Not that anything is even definitive in this paper, it's a research paper that is speaking purely of speculation!

Here's a link on evaluating sources, use it next time so you don't embarrass yourself.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Don't intentionally misinterprete the meaning of my post. Firepilot stated high altitude chemical dispersion is useless. This report, by someone much smarter than you I'm sure, clearly states otherwise.

Where does it say it's useful? It says if you drop something, it will fall.

I really don't get why you are arguing over semantics and definitions. All you are doing is expanding the term "chemtrail" a bit beyond its generally accepted definition. It's not clarifying anything.

Do you actually think there's evidence to support current secret chemtrails, by your interpretation of the definition?

Originally posted by adeclerk
Should probably read a source and not go by the excerpt the 'chemtrail' sites show. Not that anything is even definitive in this paper, it's a research paper that is speaking purely of speculation!

Here's a link on evaluating sources, use it next time so you don't embarrass yourself.

Yes, you are desperate.

Are you actualy trying to discredit my source?

Theodore A. Postol is Professor of Science, Technology and National Security
Policy in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He did his undergraduate work in Physics
and his graduate work in Nuclear Engineering at MIT. After receiving his
PhD, Dr. Postol joined the staff of Argonne National Laboratory, where he
used neutron, x-ray and light scattering, along with computer molecular
dynamics techniques, to study the microscopic dynamics and structure of
liquids and disordered solids. Subsequently he went to the Congressional
Office of Technology Assessment to study methods of basing the MX Missile,
and later worked as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations.
After leaving the Pentagon, Dr. Postol helped to build a program at Stanford
University to train mid-career scientists to study developments in weapons
technology of relevance to defense and arms control policy. In 1990 Dr.
Postol received the Leo Szilard Award from the American Physical Society.

Ya, he's a real quack.

Your little snippet is from page one.

Here's some full text then.

As will be demonstrated shortly, the droplet fall rates implied by the wind
speed, height of burst, and dimensions of the contaminated area associated with figure 1
suggests that the aerosol cloud created by the SCUD release consists of droplets with
diameters roughly between 100 and 300 microns (pm). If droplets of similar size were
created at altitudes of 10 to 20 kilometers, rather than at 1.5 km, they would initially fall
at a rate that is larger by a factor of three to five.

However, since the air temperature at higher altitudes can be as low as -70°
Fahrenheit, it is likely that dispersal of chemicals at these altitudes would result in the
formation of considerably larger aerosol particles that would fall at still higher rates.
These particles would initially be frozen (rather than being a liquid that suffers
evaporation as at lower altitudes) until they drop below about 2 kilometers altitude.
Since the cloud of large particles (of diameters perhaps of thousands of Am) would fall
quite fast (perhaps 10 or more m/sec), it would likely be distributed in a column of air
of only a few kilometers altitude. In a wind field of .9 m/sec, such a cloud could deposit
a large fraction of its total chemical content on the ground over a downwind distance of
several kilometers. The net effect of a high altitude intercept could therefore be the
creation of a contaminated area quite comparable in size and lethality to the region that
would otherwise be created by a SCUD releasing its chemicals at an optimum altitude.
As a result, it is possible that high altitude intercepts of tactical ballistic
missiles intended

As a result, it is possible that high altitude intercepts of tactical ballistic
missiles intended to protect urban populations from chemical attack might only alter the
exact pattern of damage. If this is the case, such defenses would have little or no net
mitigating effect on the overall levels of damage. In addition, the fall of toxic chemical
materials from high altitude intercepts might considerably decrease the predictability of
contamination patterns, forcing responsive civil defense and monitoring efforts to be
made over much larger areas of an urban target area.

And the conclusion.

I believe that this preliminary examination of the issues associated with
chemical dispersal from SCUDs intercepted at high altitudes leads to the conclusion
that a detailed analysis of the consequences of such intercepts is needed as part of an
assessment of the utility of such defensive actions. Such an assessment should also
include a larger and very detailed review of our now substantial experience from the
Gulf War. That larger assessment should examine the estimated damage that could
have occurred if SCUDs were not intercepted relative to damage that occurred from
falling intact missile warheads, debris, and perhaps occasional unexploded PATRIOT
interceptors. Comments on this highly preliminary analysis would be most welcome, as
these exploratory calculations raise as many questions as they answer.

Link

Does that sound like nothing more to see here? Or lets here more because there's something to this?

How many times now have I caught you now claming to have read something and replying arrogantly like you "got me"?

This is you're act all over this forum.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Don't intentionally misinterprete the meaning of my post. Firepilot stated high altitude chemical dispersion is useless. This report, by someone much smarter than you I'm sure, clearly states otherwise.

Where does it say it's useful? It says if you drop something, it will fall.

I really don't get why you are arguing over semantics and definitions. All you are doing is expanding the term "chemtrail" a bit beyond its generally accepted definition. It's not clarifying anything.

Do you actually think there's evidence to support current secret chemtrails, by your interpretation of the definition?

No, not my intention as I already said.

What i'm saying is this report clearly demonstrates that chemical dispersion at high altitude can still be effective. To be clear they say destruction of the missile will only affect where the impact is felt. The chemical will still disperse and it will also freeze at high altitude.

So its incorrect for anyone to say high altitude dispersion is uneffective.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


The credibility is fine, your interpretation is what's backward.
if high altitude dispersal worked, the missiles would explode at high altitudes. The only reason high altitudes are mentioned is because the missiles are intercepted at high altitude to minimize dispersal and harm.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

What high altitude tests used e. coli?

edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

This is a huge thread, most of which you haven't read I'm sure, and the info is here. Feel free to look for it yourself because I have already posted it and won't do so again. Ecoli is just one of the admitted tests. You could also use bacillus globigii mixed with water if you like.

I've been following the thread. I have seen nothing other than your statements that indicates that bacteria were used in high altitude tests.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Does that sound like nothing more to see here? Or lets here more because there's something to this?

What does any of that have to do with chemtrails - as defined in the link I posted above?

You're muddying the waters and shifting the goal posts to imply chemtrails are something other than what chemtrail believers thing they are.

Chemtrails are chemtrails - as defined by chemtrailers.

Other issues are other issues.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

What high altitude tests used e. coli?

edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

This is a huge thread, most of which you haven't read I'm sure, and the info is here. Feel free to look for it yourself because I have already posted it and won't do so again. Ecoli is just one of the admitted tests. You could also use bacillus globigii mixed with water if you like.

I've been following the thread. I have seen nothing other than your statements that indicates that bacteria were used in high altitude tests.

Then you haven't read through all the linked info. Not my problem.

Originally posted by Essan

What does any of that have to do with chemtrails - as defined in the link I posted above?

You're muddying the waters and shifting the goal posts to imply chemtrails are something other than what chemtrail believers thing they are.

Chemtrails are chemtrails - as defined by chemtrailers.

Other issues are other issues.

For the last time, it has nothing to do with chemtrails. What is does have something to do with is the claim, made by Firepilot and others, that chemical dispersion at high altitude is useless. I would only define it useless if the chemical was destroyed and had no chance to disperse. So what if the missile doesn't hit its target, the chemical payload will still rain down. The conculsion of the report, made by someone much smarter than all of us, clearly indicates further intrest into the matter.