TV Meteorologist shot. Chemtrail Believers Applaud it

Settle down children-You'll all get the chance to prove each other wrong.

There is no doubt that weather manipulation exists. When I was younger I figured that firing a percussive shot into storm clouds could produce rain-However I found out that it was not a new concept an I felt rather silly for not knowing about it.

But when it comes to proof of chemtrails that is still up for debate. Anyone who lives near a flight path will tell you that a contrail can take on many appearances- When a low pressure system is nearby a contrail could appear to spread over time but when a high pressure system is nearby there might not be a contrail at all.

Not to mention that 'chemtrailing' could be an exercise in futility-crop dusters require ideal conditions and that's done at a low altitude, if they climbed to thirty thousand feet before spraying then those insecticides would disperse long before they reached their target.

a reply to: waynos

It wasn't my intent to appear disingenuous...
It was just a reading comprehension fault on my part.



I'd also say it depends on the volume they can carry and how often they fly across a designated area...
Rather than expecting one plane to carry the overall volume needed to affect an area.



I also speak only about planes that are spraying stuff out, rather than usual aircraft engines chemically reacting with the atmospheric content and water vapour.



Like I said, unless they're sky writing, what's the alternatives to deliberately spraying into the air?

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MysterX

To you and Charlie:

My stance is that those white lines in the sky behind airplanes that may or may not last for hours, the ones that look an awful lot like contrails, and act, an awful lot like contrails, are probably just contrails.

Could they be a clandestine military program? I doubt it based on my personal experience, but......I don't know for sure. What I do know is those lines sure do look and act just like contrails. So, knowing that, why do they have to be "chemtrails"?

Until you can give me a real answer to that question, I will continue to believe that those lines are most likely contrails.

Ball= your court.

That's probably the fairest reply i've ever seen you post in regards to this topic..and well, a star for you for that.

The honest answer to your question is that those white lines in the sky are NOT all chemtrails, and they most certainly don't HAVE to be chemtrails.

I'd argue a large number of what people routinely see are ordinary contrails, some short lived, some longer lasting depending on variable factors like hight of aircraft, temperature at the altitude the plane is at and so on...these are NOT what people are reporting in the main, although i most certainly do not doubt many ordinary contrails are misidentified as chemtrails.

My question to you, given that you have been open and honest in saying that you don't know whether they are actually spraying or not, is why for years now, you have so vehemently argued against the possibility of chemtrails and settle on calling those who are deeply suspicious of what may be carried out above their heads, 'idiots' who don't understand basic science?

The two positions don't seem to be the best of bedfellows.

As someone coming from the same kind of approach as network dude I'd like to offer my viewpoint on your post.
You clearly do understand something of contrails, so my take is that "Chemtrails" were first brought to everyone's attention by the likes of Michael J Murphy, Phil Carnicom and a few others whose name escapes me for the moment.

It was their contention that the thick, persisting and spreading trails that could be seen in the sky were chemtrails *because* 'normal contrails' cannot last more than a few minutes and cannot spread over the sky. Therefore to fight this government programme you could donate to their websites. This is quite clearly a big lie.

If the original premise for chemtrails was so obviously a scam, why would anyone continue to look for a reason to believe in them?

If it is so obvious that some or most reported chemtrails are mis-identified contrails, why not every single one? Seriously?
When you measure a contrail and check its content volume(or a cloud as was done on a recent TV programme about weather), it quickly become patently obvious that such a trail as this simply cannot be sprayed from within an aircraft. There is no aircraft in existence with the required capacity.

Whether or not someone would be willing and evil enough to want to spray chemtrails doesn't even come into it. It is a simple fact that no trail you see from horizon to horizon and spreading out over the sky can have come from inside a plane. And yet the pictures keep coming.

Now,if we are talking about the possibility of toxins being released from aircraft, then it is entirely possible, but there is no purpose in doing this seven miles up where it may never come down and, even if it did, you can have no clue where. Anything released at this height would be completely invisible from the ground anyway. When you look at the experiments you posted in support of chemtrails, you can see that they have much in common with crop dusting and nothing whatsoever in common with contrails. That's why I am so dismissive of people making rabidly stupid claims about what are quite obviously just contrails. They claim to be aware and vigilant but they are simply deluded and looking the wrong way.

It is interesting to note that there has been some chatter in this thread about not being able to blame them for cheering for the death of this weatherman, seeing as they believe these people are part of a conspiracy to kill them with poison.

I wonder if these same people feel that people cheering for the death of those police officers can't be blamed because they feel that they are being targeted for death by the police.

a reply to: network dude

Not so fast amigo, please tell me how this...

Could it happen? sure. Things like it have happened. But...becasue they did happen is not proof of anything. And the biggest question of all, if they did do it, would it look like contrails? Could you even see it from the ground? remember, if it's for SRM, it would be above 50K feet.

squares with what you say in another chemtrail thread...

I am actually against chemtrails as the whole idea is ignorant

Why the flip flopping?

a reply to: jaws1975

Why would something being sprayed be visible at all, let alone appear exactly like a contrail?

a reply to: Zaphod58

That wasn't my question for network dude, my question is why does he admit they have happened, and in other threads he says the very idea of chemtrails are ignorant.

a reply to: jaws1975

Because if you look at just about every chemtrail site, they claim some or all persistent contrails are chemtrails. Which IS insane.

They have sprayed things in the past, and they've talked about doing it in the future. But the idea that persistent contrails are the same thing is insane.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
OK, but when I'm talking about volumes, I mean the volume from a single trail from a single plane. There really is a vast amount that one plane cannot carry. Here is an earlier discussion on that point........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would like to ask why you are so convinced that anyone IS spraying into the air, beyond known and understood practices such as cloud seeding, cropdusting, fire/oil spill countermeasures etc which are all done at low altitude?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I see what you are doing right now, hopefully others do to.

a reply to: jaws1975

I'm answering what you posted. If you want to try to put an ulterior motive to it, whatever.

a reply to: jaws1975

I think you may have misunderstood the point. Spraying a substance from an aircraft (all the things I listed in my previous post as well as these military operations) are certainly not only possible, but factual. We know these operations happened before. They're just not chemtrails because, as defined by the ringleaders, none of them were sprayed right across the sky seven miles high spreading out. They were all, without exception, low level, targeted releases of small amounts. There is no resemblance to contrails and so no reason to suppose they would lead to anything that looks like contrails. Even if the technology has moved on, as many claim, any operation would still be limited by the capacity of the carrier aircraft and, at seven miles up, they'd be barely visible, if at all, from the ground and quickly dispersed in the upper air currents. Unless you know something different?

This is of course my own opinion, but it's how I understood the original point too

dp

This is sickening, the people making these comments are so heartless and well...they're also idiots. Do they really think the guy who reports the weather has any control over chemtrails?

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Zaphod58

That wasn't my question for network dude, my question is why does he admit they have happened, and in other threads he says the very idea of chemtrails are ignorant.

Nobody is denying that things have been sprayed out of planes. However, what some of us are saying is that the trails such as seen in the images below are not chemtrails, but contrails:

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: jaws1975

I think you may have misunderstood the point. Spraying a substance from an aircraft (all the things I listed in my previous post as well as these military operations) are certainly not only possible, but factual. We know these operations happened before. They're just not chemtrails because, as defined by the ringleaders, none of them were sprayed right across the sky seven miles high spreading out. They were all, without exception, low level, targeted releases of small amounts. There is no resemblance to contrails and so no reason to suppose they would lead to anything that looks like contrails. Even if the technology has moved on, as many claim, any operation would still be limited by the capacity of the carrier aircraft and, at seven miles up, they'd be barely visible, if at all, from the ground and quickly dispersed in the upper air currents. Unless you know something different?

This is of course my own opinion, but it's how I understood the original point too

Not necessarily so.

It greatly depends on exactly WHAT chemicals are being sprayed, how high and at what concentration and quite a few other factors are brought into play.

Let's put it this way..there is an outright ban on weather modification, and most patents cited include equipment specifically listed and patented for weather modification purposes.

I don't know what's being sprayed, but if i intellectually play devil's advocate for a minute, and presume the spraying is illegal but is done for benign reasons, such as reduction of C02 and other so-called greenhouse gases.

What chemical could we use to reduce C02?

Well, it just so happens that one of the wars we've been fighting in the ME has yielded VAST quantities of Lithium, quantities that would be required if any reduction of C02 was going to be worth the effort and huge expenditure of an international spraying project.

It so happens if you take a load of Lithium Oxide and mix it with a C02 rich atmosphere, you end up converting that C02 into Oxygen and H2O, thus removing some of the C02...it also just happens that Lithium oxide which doesn't react with C02 and turn into Oxygen and water, can cause nasty health effects on people and animals, much like the effects being reported by people after seeing what they identify as chemtrails...is this what is being sprayed out of aircraft in a 'noble' effort to reduce greenhouse effects? Possibly, who knows...they won't even admit it's going on, much less what they are using and why.

originally posted by: MysterX

...Let's put it this way..there is an outright ban on weather modification, and most patents cited include equipment specifically listed and patented for weather modification purposes...

I'm not sure what you mean by "weather modification" exactly, but weather modification such as cloud seeding isn't banned. Cloud seeding is done openly and legally.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

OK...i should have said 'Geoengineering' instead of weather modification.

Although:

The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. The Convention on Biological Diversity of 2010 would also ban some forms of weather modification or geoengineering.

Wiki

As i said, i don't know if what they are up to is benign or not...so if not it's certainly banned, if it is benign it is a grey area of legality.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Nobody is denying that things have been sprayed out of planes. However, what some of us are saying is that the trails such as seen in the images below are not chemtrails, but contrails:

So since you are the one claiming that they are not chemtrails, but contrails, how can you prove that?

a reply to: MysterX

OK. So what chemicals, in what concentrations and what other factors would replicate the appearance and behaviour of contrails? Because I don't know of any, and if you don't know of any, why would you believe spraying actually occurs? We know, for a fact, about contrails and their formation so can you propose what the alternative is?

Of course you can't. That's a good example of believing in chemtrails because someone once wrote chemtrails on the internet, rather than because there is actually anything there.

It's also pointless to speculate on why something may be happening if you can't even show that anything is happening at all. You seem to be working on the assumption that spraying is occurring. First one has to show it is, then work out why. To merely say that it is obvious that most chemtrail claims are wrong, because the original basis for them was a lie, but that chemtrails MAY exist because if someone wanted to do a certain thing then chemtrails might be a way to do it is just baseless speculation of no value.

First find the chemtrail, then work out what it does from what's in it. Though in 20 years of supposed evidence gathering, nobody has actually found one at all, which points to it being false, or being utterly ineffective and so nothing to worry about. Wouldn't you agree?