New World Order, China, Chemtrails and Big Business.

reply to post by chrismicha77

Ted Gunderson tells it like it is and he knows the truth!

Maybe you should check this thread before you decide to think he is telling the truth...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you have read it maybe you should read it again. Just a thought.

Originally posted by chrismicha77


Ted Gunderson tells it like it is and he knows the truth!

Nope, Ted lied to you and you fell for it.

Its impossible for your spray planes to be flying out of Ft Sill, and there is zero evidence of any secret planes flying out of the Lincoln Nebraska municipal airport

Originally posted by djcarlosa
Ok here is a question for the more scientific minded members on the contrail's side [phage would be the best but if he is not available i will make do]

Lets say that there was such a [so say] geoengineering program involving the spraying of aluminium and barium into the atmosphere what effects would it have on the light spectrum as light from space passed through it.
Maybe i can explain that a little better we all know that light has a wide spectrum one end gamma rays and am radio waves at the other end but my question relates to ultra violet, visible spectrum and infra red.
Would such a filter [aluminium/barium] block out any of the visible light spectrum and if so would it be the blue/indigo/violet part of the spectrum[light with shorter wave lengths]?

Basically it would depend on the size and shape of any particles used. In general there would be an overall dimming effect, but any color change would be down to particle size. (assuming the particles are opaque to visible light)

If it were stratospheric sulfate aerosols, then it would probably have the same effect that Mount Pinatubo had.

www.spc.noaa.gov...

i.e. mostly a dimming effect during the day, but also some redder sunsets. The above link has explanations.

[ETA] I could be wrong there, as the particles the made the red sunset were probably not the same as the SSAs.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by firepilot

 

Gas, petrol, radial, piston driven WWII engines obviously were not jet propelled. They also burned different fuel. If I threw jet fuel into my car it would burn up. It burned at cooler temperatures and less efficiently. It's the difference between driving a smoker and a BMW that does 180 on the autobahn. They were primitive. You are right in that they didn't fly at altitude. My point: there's a difference in something being a smog producer (what they call a gross polluter in cars) and being a jet aircraft. You know the drill with the rest of what I would say here but even with all the above aside it is ludicrous to compare the look of the skies during the Battle of Britain with the skies now. And my exception was with the memo brought from the depths to make a statement about business as usual in the skies today which we've already discussed and gentlemanly agreed to disagree.

Contrails are not smoke. They are ice clouds. During the Battle of Britain then unless a plane was on fire then the trails were also ice clouds. See this 1943 explanation:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4695bea72bad.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by luxordelphi

The article was posted because of lots of speculation as to what was going on with those weird trails in the sky (sound familiar??) that people started noticing during the Battle of Britain (1940).

So you're comparing Battle of Britain airspace with current day airspace?

No - I'm comparing BoB contrails with today's contrails.

and why wouldn't I?

the air is the same, the principles are teh same - you burn hydrocarbons (whether gas(oline) or kerosene or gas (as in LPG or CNG)) you generate a lot of moisture, and if the conditios are right then it condenses out as contrails.

whethe it is a jet or a piston it is burned in doesn't actually matter much - just the atmospheric conditions where it is burned and exhausted.

reply to post by firepilot

I'm talking smog and Battle of Britain. You're telling me that I should just accept the skies I see because they are no different then the Battle of Britain skies. I can't even argue such an indefensible (from your side) position. It's like telling me that a go-cart is comparable to the octane rating today in jet aircraft. It's folly.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by firepilot

 

I'm talking smog and Battle of Britain.

In what way are they linked?

I was the one who bought up hte BoB, and I certainly wasn't talking smog - I was talking contrails - like these ones photographed in 1940:

You're telling me that I should just accept the skies I see because they are no different then the Battle of Britain skies. I can't even argue such an indefensible (from your side) position. It's like telling me that a go-cart is comparable to the octane rating today in jet aircraft. It's folly.

I'm saying contrails were noticed in the BoB - as per the photo above - and people wanted to know what they were. The article I linked to explains what they were thought to be in 1942 - as it turns out that is pretty much still what we think contrails are.

whether they were made in 1040, 2011, or even 1919 - contrails are ice crystals made by combustion of hydrocarbons in certain atmospheric conditions.

It's not about "comparing skies" - it is about knowing the history and sciene involved, and understanding that the atmosphere doesn't care about the date!

Lets forget about Ted, because I'm not gonna argue with you all.

So, I'll mention this again because you all decided to pick apart one part out of my post.

This is just a segment of Bill Text 107th Congress (2001-2002) H.R.2977.IH - anyone care to debunk this as well?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by firepilot

 

I'm talking smog and Battle of Britain. You're telling me that I should just accept the skies I see because they are no different then the Battle of Britain skies. I can't even argue such an indefensible (from your side) position. It's like telling me that a go-cart is comparable to the octane rating today in jet aircraft. It's folly.

If you are calling it SMOG, that proves you arent even familar at all with what is being talked about in the slightest.

Smog is a combination of "smoke" and "fog", it is a term used to the photochemical reaction in the pollution haze that was made worse by sunlight. It is not about singular trails or exhaust plumes, what so ever.

And if you think it is just some kind of exhaust plume, then you would have had those trails at takeoff and all the time, which they did not.

You keep posting wrong things, and then when its just pointed out what you are wrong, you slide over to something else, rather than deliberate on how being wrong affects your overall belief system.

Sort of like your assertion that putting jet fuel in a car will make it burn or blow up, when it reality it will make your engine get very quiet as it stopped running

reply to post by chrismicha77


See:

contrailscience.com...

So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:

Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.

They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails. The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.

Originally posted by chrismicha77
Lets forget about Ted, because I'm not gonna argue with you all.

So, I'll mention this again because you all decided to pick apart one part out of my post.

This is just a segment of Bill Text 107th Congress (2001-2002) H.R.2977.IH - anyone care to debunk this as well?

Done a long time ago - kucinich and HR2977

lol - figures Uncinus has quicker access to his website than me!

reply to post by Uncinus

"...if the spotter is quick enough" being the key words in your ancient diagram. Please refer back to the many posters who have tried to explain to you the difference in contrail and chemtrail duration.

reply to post by chrismicha77

I especially like the part about extraterrestrial weapons.

Originally posted by chrismicha77
Lets forget about Ted, because I'm not gonna argue with you all.

Why?

Why not dwell on if Teds claims are possible? You are the one who brought it up just now, instead of trying to remove it from debate because he could very well be wrong, why do you not want to analyze what he said and see if you were lied to?

Or would you rather not know if the duo of Hilder and Gunderson were lying to you? I cant understand why you would not want to know that. There is nothing wrong in having your chemtrail faith challenged

reply to post by chrismicha77


Why would you even think about posting that? I take it you didn't research this out before posting it, did you?

Quit being duped by certain people it doesn't work out real well in the end. Your bill never even made it past committee before being shot down. Research it.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

"...if the spotter is quick enough" being the key words in your ancient diagram. Please refer back to the many posters who have tried to explain to you the difference in contrail and chemtrail duration.

Did you miss the very next sentence, which starts "Some of them, especially those left by a planes exhaust at high, cold altitudes, endure for some time,....."?

Or did you just not bother posting it because you don't like it?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi

The article was posted because of lots of speculation as to what was going on with those weird trails in the sky (sound familiar??) that people started noticing during the Battle of Britain (1940).

So you're comparing Battle of Britain airspace with current day airspace?

No - I'm comparing BoB contrails with today's contrails.

and why wouldn't I?

Let me spell it out for you: Battle of Britain means that there was a war being waged overhead in the skies. Chemtrails are not the result of a war. They are the result of weather modification programs illegally conducted under the guise of national security as a result of new protocols referring back to old laws as a result of 9/11. Before 9/11 there was not even that to protect the program so the military flew the planes and private companies provided the stuff. Now private companies can do the whole because it is under the guise of national security.

the air is the same, the principles are teh same - you burn hydrocarbons (whether gas(oline) or kerosene or gas (as in LPG or CNG)) you generate a lot of moisture, and if the conditios are right then it condenses out as contrails.

whethe it is a jet or a piston it is burned in doesn't actually matter much - just the atmospheric conditions where it is burned and exhausted.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Uncinus


Wow who could of guessed you reference your website.

I know it was rewritten but, it was rewritten to exclude chemtrails and such. Wonder why they were taken out?

I don't buy it...sorry.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Battle of Britain means there are planes flying overhead at high altitude.

Modern jet travel means the same thing.

When planes fly high enough, then they make persistent contrails. They have done for 90 years.

reply to post by chrismicha77

I know it was rewritten but, it was rewritten to exclude chemtrails and such. Wonder why they were taken out?

Probably because Kucinich actually read it after the first go round and said, "What the hell is this crap doing in here? Extraterrestrial weapons? What's a 'chemtrail'? "