Merry CHEMTRAILS and Happy New Year!!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
They look NOTHING like normal condensation trails, nor do they act the same. As far as those trails being tested, do you have the paperwork to back-up your claims?

I guess, when i said: "chemical reaction", you supposed it meant big explosions and such. Your minds are very limited. Almost to the point of trying to explain something to a 3 year old. And what about those "cloud seeding" planes; which i've never seen. I just see loooooong white lines that grow while they linger.

You 6 characters are the only people on ATS with a "Nay" answer. Are you a part of Al Gore's crew?

reply to post by WonderBoi


Guessing (wrongly) what someone means and then arguing with your own assumption is an interesting form of debate. Not very useful, but interesting. You did it with me a few pages back and you now seem to be at it with Gaul. I think it's pretty obvious since a while back you are just trolling and none of your recent posts address what anyone is saying. Because of that I'm just going to leave you be and try to have a conversation with someone who actually wants one. OK lad?

Double post, go with the next one.

reply to post by Shuftystick


Yes indeed, what developments?

I have not of seen any powder found in aircraft contrails but, as you rightly say, patents for apparatus have long existed.

One of the great errors that chemtrail believers make in these discussions is that debunkers believe that "they" would never spray anything on the population or that the apparatus for such operations does not exist or such similar claims. This is patently false.

Anyone with power and motivation will basically do whatever they can get away with, this is surely a given? Also the means of disbursing materials from aircraft have existed for almost as long as the aircraft themselves. No patents are needed to demonstrate the evil ingenuity of certain humans, it is self evident.

I am perfectly capable of conceiving spraying, I remember all too well Saddam Hussain spraying entire villages in Iraq and wiping them out, one thing that believers, curiously, never bring forth as circumstantial support, which is odd given the things they do present.

However my position is just that, chemtrails, if they exist, are not contrails. Firstly, every single picture ever posted of "chemtrails" looks exactly like contrails, so the photographic evidence is lacking. The insistence of such as wonderboi that their pictures don't look like contrails simply emphasises how little they understand, which does not help their credibility at all. To this photographic failing you can add photos of sprayer planes that are standard Air Force refuelling tankers (ie Rense) or photos of secret interior shots showing chemtrail tanks that are water ballast tanks for prototype tests. If this stuff is out there, where is the real stuff. If they can't get it, why destroy their credibility by faking it?

The aircraft flying overhead leaving criss cross contrails can be identified and the mystery removed. If you read my post on page one about that you will see the 11 pages following in which the OP simply doesn't want to know! In the only reply he made to that post he utterly missed the point anyway.

Moving on to your post, as I said, I don't know of powder being found in contrails as described in the patent. If you do I'd be fascinated to see. A patent is an idea, but where is the apparatus or the evidence of its usage?

One bit of genuine evidence and I'm in. Otherwise I'm happy to debate. What is it in particular that led you see chemtrails as real?

reply to post by WonderBoi


This coming from a dude that joined in April 2013?!

reply to post by Shuftystick


Another thing I wanted to get back to, you expressed a concern earlier about trails being different now and after my reply you mentioned your own familiarity with jets. What is it, for you, that doesn't add up about my earlier explanation about the increase in traffic numbers combined with the general shift towards HBPR engines?

Shuftystick


All intelligent debaters are recommended to search the US Patent Office database under patent number search for patent number 3,899,144. For this relative newbie to the forum, my only comment would be, since 8/12/75 or 12/8/75 (UK), what developments to this type of technology have occurred?

As Rumpole of the Bailey would have said "Your Honour, I rest my case."

edit on 2-1-2014 by Shuftystick because: Omission of quote from Horace Rumpole Barrister at Law, 4 Equity Chambers, London

They use flares for target practice instead now

www.esterline.com...

reply to post by waynos

What doesn't add up is that cloud seeding, as an example, is an accepted proven technique used to create precipitation, be that rain, fog or snow, for purposes as diverse as battlefield cover to providing rain in arid areas.

While technology may allow some thermal imaging or view view through, normal radar or visual imagery is restricted or blocked as a result of chemtrailing or whatever label is hung on the method.

So these are just a few examples of how the method is used, whether it is dispersing silver iodine or dry ice or anything else becomes irrelevant, the technique is used, fact.

Images of aircraft adapted to spray and which are not of the crop duster variants are available on the internet. The equipment is of a dispersal rather than a gathering ability, defined as being rear facing rather than forward facing.

Or just view a list...
Extensive List of PATENTS - GeoengineeringWatch.org
www.geoengineeringwatch.org/an-extensive-list-of-patents/

Shuftystick
reply to post by waynos

 

What doesn't add up is that cloud seeding, as an example, is an accepted proven technique used to create precipitation, be that rain, fog or snow, for purposes as diverse as battlefield cover to providing rain in arid areas.

What doesn't add up about that?

Shuftystick
reply to post by waynos

 

What doesn't add up is that cloud seeding, as an example, is an accepted proven technique used to create precipitation, be that rain, fog or snow, for purposes as diverse as battlefield cover to providing rain in arid areas.

I don't see any connection there to my question or what we both said before unless you think cloud seeding makes contrails?

While technology may allow some thermal imaging or view view through, normal radar or visual imagery is restricted or blocked as a result of chemtrailing or whatever label is hung on the method.

Such as what?

So these are just a few examples of how the method is used, whether it is dispersing silver iodine or dry ice or anything else becomes irrelevant, the technique is used, fact.

When did you ever see a cloud seeder leave a long trail in a clear sky?

Images of aircraft adapted to spray and which are not of the crop duster variants are available on the internet. The equipment is of a dispersal rather than a gathering ability, defined as being rear facing rather than forward facing.

Can you show an example? I don't want to jump to conclusions.

Or just view a list...
Extensive List of PATENTS - GeoengineeringWatch.org
www.geoengineeringwatch.org/an-extensive-list-of-patents/

Nobody disputes the patents, what was your point with the list?

Nobody disputes the patents, what was your point with the list?

The point is that these days people can have a nice hot cup of tea

reply to post by mrthumpy


Pardon my cynicism, but these are the "legitimate" uses of technology that form chemtrails as opposed to contrails that are easily discovered.

Given the established track record of TPTB for not keeping the hoi polio in the loop the natural and reasonable thing to wonder is what are they doing that may leave a chemtrail that we are not privy to?

Shuftystick
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

Pardon my cynicism, but these are the "legitimate" uses of technology that form chemtrails as opposed to contrails that are easily discovered.

Given the established track record of TPTB for not keeping the hoi polio in the loop the natural and reasonable thing to wonder is what are they doing that may leave a chemtrail that we are not privy to?

So what you're posting has no relevance to chemtrail theory at all. They're using something that we're not aware of instead?

I'm afraid whatever the point you're trying to make is, you're not making it

reply to post by Shuftystick


Please can you show the link between this;

THE SOAR PROGRAM UTILIZES TWO PRESSURIZED TWIN ENGINE CESSNA 340 AIRCRAFT FOR ITS CLOUD SEEDING OPERATIONS. THE AIRCRAFT ARE EQUIPPED WITH TWO 310 HORSEPOWER CONTINENTAL ENGINES. A FULL DEICE BOOT SYSTEM IS ALSO INSTALLED ON EACH AIRCRAFT TO PROVIDE PROTECTION IN ICING CONDITIONS. ON THE GROUND AT THE RADAR FACILITY THE METEOROLOGIST WILL ASSIGN THE PILOT THE CLOUD THAT HAS A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF SUPERCOOLED LIQUID WATER. SEEDING IS GENERALLY AT CLOUD BASE. AT CLOUD TOP THE AIRCRAFT WILL FIND THE ALTITUDE WHERE THE TEMPERATURES ARE ABOUT -5 ºC. THIS IS THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH THE SEEDING AGENT IS MOST ACTIVE.

www.sandylandwater.com...

And these;








Because you seem to have one that I don't see.

WonderBoi

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by network dude

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't read a book. EVER.

Be damned you evil science books...Be damned.

Books never teach anybody anything.

Again, i'll ask: DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CHEMISTRY...or are your replies always 1 sided? If you don't know about atoms, molecules and stuff....not sure what to tell you. Maybe, you should lay off the public school "science" books and pick up a chemistry book. IDK???

OK, which chemicals? What reactions are we looking for?

Anyone who pays attention already knows about clouds, and contrails, so what can you teach us about chemistry? If you can rise above the urge to whine like a two year old, people might listen to you.

Use science to back up your theory please.

reply to post by Shuftystick

What doesn't add up is that cloud seeding, as an example, is an accepted proven technique used to create precipitation, be that rain, fog or snow, for purposes as diverse as battlefield cover to providing rain in arid areas.

While technology may allow some thermal imaging or view view through, normal radar or visual imagery is restricted or blocked as a result of chemtrailing or whatever label is hung on the method.

So these are just a few examples of how the method is used, whether it is dispersing silver iodine or dry ice or anything else becomes irrelevant, the technique is used, fact.

Images of aircraft adapted to spray and which are not of the crop duster variants are available on the internet. The equipment is of a dispersal rather than a gathering ability, defined as being rear facing rather than forward facing.

Here I posted this earlier in this thread and it seems there is a need to post it again...



Any chance you can show us a pic of these planes that are spraying chemtrails ?