Quit "looking up" and start "looking facts up".

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: network dude

Yea, I looked up one day and started paying attention and found my solar panel production was reduced to a fraction because military planes spend all day flying in circles blotting out the sun wile they are displacing oxygen.We had 30% in ww2 now we are down to 20-21%, we start suffocating at 15%.

What? I have never heard of our oxygen content on Earth ever being more than 21%. When did this happen? (please offer more than just your word on this)

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: network dude

Yea, I looked up one day and started paying attention and found my solar panel production was reduced to a fraction because military planes spend all day flying in circles blotting out the sun wile they are displacing oxygen.We had 30% in ww2 now we are down to 20-21%, we start suffocating at 15%.The trails form cloud networks that change our weather that effects our food and economy. But dont worry be happy and dont question anything or you will be called anti-American.

I call out the assertions you made in this post to be utter crap.

There was 30-35% Oxygen in the Earths atmosphere around 300 million years ago. A consequence of this was the giant insects and mammals that roamed the earth during that period. Levels have been around 21% throughout human history and were certainly at the same levels they are now when oxygen was discovered, as dephlogisticated air, in the late 1770's.

I request that you provide sources for your claim of 30% Oxygen at the time of WW2. Let's see where that drivel originated from.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
So, what you're saying is... Trust the internet, not your instincts!

But they can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true.

Look, It says so right here:

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
See that is the sham right there because anyone who believes in Chemtrails didn't get the idea by looking up. They read something about it on the internet and then fit their reality to only those things they choose to believe. The whole movement if you will is fueled by information circulated around the internet. That's what makes those few posts so damn funny. a reply to: network dude

It's not so much about looking up or looking on the internet, it's about looking and then not looking further unless the message is the same or is not from an authority. See, I can read and hear anything anywhere, even in my own thoughts, but if I stop looking further just because something is coming from an authority or the message changes from the way I knew it, that's when it becomes bad.

So I wouldn't blame the internet. The internet can communicate whatever is placed on it, including real science. The same is true for radio and books and newspapers and any kind of media or platform someone uses to communicate. It comes down to people and their shortcomings. If it were only the internet that caused people to become prejudiced then history would be a story of peace and truth - which it's not.

If your concern is over how the internet cannot be controlled and thus people can tune out without obstructions then I have to say the same thing can happen with anything else. If the radio isn't saying what I want to hear, I can shut it off or change hte station. If the newspaper is too liberal, I can subscribe to a more conservative organization or just simply get my news directly from the wires without a middleman. If people say things I don't want to hear, I can choose to not associate with them.

Now, there's different levels of effort needed when trying to tune out things, depending on the medium you use to communicate. If I don't like someone, I can of course avoid them. I can turn off the tv and stop participating in government and all manners of things. However, at some point, something like the police will step in and force me to observe the laws of the land. It's kind of like gravity. I can ignore it and act as though it's not there, but at some point it's going to hurt me and make its presence known. The same will happen with the internet. Eventually, the big authorative sites will make their presence known, just as the big names do on tv or in the newspapers. If that doesn't work, someone comes knocking. The truht cannot be hidden forever, as it'll eventually makes i t voice heard.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
What I've learned about the internet over the years is that you can find exactly what you're looking for. Support for or against any issue known to mankind. Imagination , lies, ,truth and deception. It's all out there. Reply to: waynos

I haven't found convincing support on the internet that chemtrails are real, neither that the moon landing never happened or that the 9/11 victims were hired actors. If I had found convincing support, and I mean *CONVINCING*, then I would believe in those theories today. But I don't. 100s of related websites which try to sell me those theories won't help there. In fact, those sites just confirm the nonsense behind most of those theories.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz3
a reply to: Rob48

(the link works for me ?) I concede I don't know much about the altitude influence. I still find times like the day I took that pic so seemingly saturated with trails to be odd, when usually it's nowhere near as evident. really i know nothing of the technical side of this issue. but I want to. your info is very helpful in that respect.

thanks for your reply.

You admit you "know nothing of the technical side" and yet you say you know it's "not normal"? That's exactly what the OP was talking about: people trusting their instincts rather than facts.

I managed to get the link to work (cookie problem I think) and those are normal contrails. Some days you will get loads, some days you won't. It's all a function of temperature and humidity.



It is even forecastable: see the link in my signature.

originally posted by: rickymouse

Things can be dual purpose, engines can be designed to produce a certain effect.

no they cannot, all engines that burn something, even coal has hydrocarbons in it with the exception of coke, produce water vapor and it is the water vapor that produces contrails.

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: network dude

We had 30% in ww2 now we are down to 20-21%, we start suffocating at 15%.

and where did you get your data for 30% o2 in the atmosphere in ww2? because 30% is toxic to us

a reply to: bigx001

Then why does NASA say differently? I think there is a link to NASA research right in this thread somewhere, I actually read a more thorough evaluation myself, the more efficient turbines make more contrails burning less fuel. These contrails cause extra global warming as the reflection does not leave the upper atmosphere and actually heats it rather than reflecting it back into space as they once mistakenly thought it would do.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: network dude

So, what you're saying is...
Trust the internet, not your instincts!

LMAO
I'll get right on that.
LOL

So you looked up one day and said "must be chemtrails" and left it at that. Brilliant.
You don't need to research anything. You are right where you need to be.

Someone thought of this subject (in some depth) as a viable forum and required an Icon to describe its FORUM content.

While I do agree with you, I find it a bit ironic that you use the example of a lemming. For those aware of what I am referring to, they too will see the irony.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: network dude

So, what you're saying is...
Trust the internet, not your instincts!

LMAO
I'll get right on that.
LOL

So you looked up one day and said "must be chemtrails" and left it at that. Brilliant.
You don't need to research anything. You are right where you need to be.

Someone thought of this subject (in some depth) as a viable forum and required an Icon to describe its FORUM content.

That icon... Tell me, is it blue (for Science and Technology topics) or red (for Conspiracy Theory topics)?

originally posted by: bigx001


because 30% is toxic to us

It is not. Otherwise we wouldn't have many scuba divers around to tell their tales.In our atmosphere, at standard pressures, toxicity occurs at about 50%

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: network dude

Yea, I looked up one day and started paying attention and found my solar panel production was reduced to a fraction because military planes spend all day flying in circles blotting out the sun wile they are displacing oxygen.We had 30% in ww2 now we are down to 20-21%, we start suffocating at 15%.The trails form cloud networks that change our weather that effects our food and economy. But dont worry be happy and dont question anything or you will be called anti-American.

I would like to see some sources to back up those numbers you posted there....do you mean to say the atmosphere during WWII was comprised of 30 percent oxygen and has reduced in oxygen content to the levels you are claiming now?

And what has happened to food production? As far as I am aware, the San Joaquin Valley, all by its lonesome, produces enough food to feed the population of the earth every day of every year...

originally posted by: WeSbO
It is not. Otherwise we wouldn't have many scuba divers around to tell their tales.

Diving below depths of 184' requires you to blend less than 21% oxygen to avoid toxicity. At shallower depths we often use Nitrox where the tank is marked with the maximum permissible dive depth to avoid toxicity and it could have a higher blend (up to 100%). Typical blends used are EAN32 and EAN36 (called Nitrox I and II) which are 32% and 36% percent oxygen and allow you to dive to 112' and 95' respectively at 1.4 bar. The reason we use extra oxygen is to reduce the amount of nitrogen which accumulates in the blood stream. There are Tec Divers who may use a higher mix but they have many years of experience and the multiple blends they may use on one dive will often vary the ppO2 mixture to prevent decompression sickness or to avoid hypoxia.

What you also need to take into account is that pressures underwater (bar) affects the nervous and pulmonary system much differently than at sea level, what would be toxic to breath as either of those may not be so if reversed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

edit on 13-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because his mug got filled with chemtrail residue

Now that was funny...

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Now that was funny...

The Dude does not think so.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Dude does not think so.

That's because it gives you this...



And who wants that?

originally posted by: RoScoLaz3
whatever. I took this pic;

i1208.photobucket.com...

not normal (or i'd have seen this level of saturation every night) and not acceptable.

Well the atmospheric conditions have to be right but a quick look on planefinder, flightradar24 & others would have given the flight info

I believe in observation.

When you wake up and see checker board skies and the trails spread making it to the ground, makes you wonder. Don't live by an airport so why so busy? Watched 3 planes at same altitude at the same time with the middle one's trails disappearing shortly after the plane while the others lingered and spread getting larger coming towards the ground. Red and white planes seem to be the best at it.

So anybody can say anything but the facts remain which are variables from the norm. I never seen a contrail spread and make it to the ground when I was a kid and I loved looking at planes in the sky. New fuel? It should be cleaner not dirtier. For what ever the reasons if cemtrails are true, life on this planet is short and only 100 years ago the average lifespan was 46 years old for men and for women 48. Now it's over 70 for men and 80 for women. We could go back to when they did nothing and had no tech but nature shortened life not man.

I wouldn't get too worried until we see the trend of dying older change to dying younger.

Just a thought.