posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: MagicWand67
Yes, the point is that contrails are not chemtrails. They are ice which nucleates on very small amounts of impurities. Chemtrail sites, however, tell
you that contrails are not made of ice at all, but they consist ENTIRELY of toxic chemicals. Check out what Dane Wigington writes on his site. He says
persistent contrails are so rare that "most people will never see one". If he says it's 100% toxic chemicals and I say it is ice (did I say pure ice?)
and in reality it is 99.9999%+ ice, then who is right?
And now that I and others have made that clear, you have changed your story to try and make it look as though you were right all along. But you're not
Nobody disputes that burning jet fuel causes pollution, or that contrail cirrus blocks solar radiation. That is not what this thread is about. It's
about "chemtrails", ie deliberate spraying of chemicals in addition to normal combustion products. Which don't exist.
And that your attempt to minimize the metal particles, soot and exhaust gases is again LIES.
First direct sulfuric acid detection in the exhaust plume of a jet aircraft in flight
I'm not minimising. You are exaggerating and scaremongering. If you took the time to read that article rather than quote-mining snippets that you
think support your case, you would see that even the "sulphur rich plume" had levels of 1300 parts per TRILLION
by volume of sulphuric acid.
That's 1.3 parts per billion. The limit for sulphate in drinking water in the USA is 250 parts per MILLION, or almost 200,000 times higher than the
amounts you are talking about.
A few parts per trillion of aluminium and other metals, and a few parts per million of sulphur and carbon, does not turn a contrail into a chemtrail.
Like I said, you could melt contrails down and they would pass every safety test for drinking water with flying colours (no pun intended). Your
classic bait and switch shows that you know you were wrong.
edit on 21-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)