The United Nations Exposes Chemtrails: 100% PROOF We Are Being Poisoned

I watched the video and found myself agreeing with most of what she said. First off, cloud seeding. She never offered that name for it, but it was what she was refereeing to. Little to no oversight on it. I agree with that. But then again, do we need more government, or less? Perhaps we could re-task the IRS and make them do something useful for a change.

Then she discusses contrails and their possible negative affect by contributing to global temps rising. Again, if it's found to have a big affect, we need to look at it. Less flights would be a start, but so many folks have to travel, how will they get where they are going? Conundrum.

She did get a little wacky about the government secret stuff, but amazingly offered no proof of what she was saying.

Sad that it appears this isn't the 100% PROOF it claimed to be. I had high hopes. I figured if chemtrails were proven real, bigfoot is going to be the one breaking the story.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Water needs something to condense on to become visible.

Even though clouds are absent in a crystal clear blue sky, water is still present in the form of water vapor and droplets which are too small to be seen. Depending on weather conditions, water molecules will combine with tiny particles of dust, salt, and smoke in the air to form cloud droplets, which grow and develop into clouds, a form of water we can see.

USGS

originally posted by: intrptr
The deflection is 'mystery spraying' , terminology used, "Chemtrails".

The only mystery is why the deflection away from jet exhaust (the real polluter) to some mysterious element thats undefined.

No mystery at all. The corporate airline industry would like you to argue about something bedside the real health effects fallout from pollutants caused by jet exhaust and the rest of industry.

No one wants to talk about that.

That's because, according to the hardcore career debunkers, jet fuel has no harmful byproducts once passed through the engine. Somehow kerosene is magically transformed into simple happy joyful water vapor which spreads into a thick haze blocking the sun yet having no net negative health effects.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Good lord, who fool tells you garbage like that?
I thought everyone knew planes burned fuel.

a reply to: intrptr

That would be the ice crystals. The water vapor exits the engine and turns into ice crystals because the air is cold enough. Ice crystals become contrails. If there's enough water vapor already in the air it spreads out into a persistent contrail.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: intrptr
The deflection is 'mystery spraying' , terminology used, "Chemtrails".

The only mystery is why the deflection away from jet exhaust (the real polluter) to some mysterious element thats undefined.

No mystery at all. The corporate airline industry would like you to argue about something bedside the real health effects fallout from pollutants caused by jet exhaust and the rest of industry.

No one wants to talk about that.

That's because, according to the hardcore career debunkers, jet fuel has no harmful byproducts once passed through the engine. Somehow kerosene is magically transformed into simple happy joyful water vapor which spreads into a thick haze blocking the sun yet having no net negative health effects.

Who is making that claim? I've never seen anyone stating anything close to what you're implying here.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Yah, more efficiently burned at altitude, but still… burning.

Anything that burns produces toxins. At altitude, during takeoff or taxiing on the runway.
As far as I now jet engines don't employ catalytic converters, either.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The possibility that persistent contrails actually do exist is there. Even way back in 1915. But I am saying that now a days, they are trying to call ALL long clouds, persistent contrails, and that is Bull S!! I was referring to the chart Here www.abovetopsecret.com... There is data supporting chemtrails. ALSO the humidity at the time of these tests does NOT support a theory of Persistent ConTrails!!!. THEY CANNOT EXIST IN AIR THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE HUMIDITY TO CREATE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sheeeesh!!!!!!

Chart in THIS POST

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Urantia1111

Yah, more efficiently burned at altitude, but still… burning.

Anything that burns produces toxins. At altitude, during takeoff or taxiing on the runway.
As far as I now jet engines don't employ catalytic converters, either.

Yep, and neither do Trucks.

Gasoline automobiles in the United States have catalytic converters that clean exhaust by converting nitrogen oxides (NOx) into harmless nitrogen gas. Diesel engines, in contrast, do not have effective catalytic converters.

link

I think what may have been misunderstood is those white puffy lines aren't pollution (except visual), the toxins are not seen, and exist from engine start to engine stop.

a reply to: intrptr

They don't need them. They burn much more efficiently than a vehicle engine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Visible water or ice in the atmosphere only becomes visible because it aggregates on tiny dust particles growing in size until they become visible.

You could read my last post again and the link quoted, but I see you are just deflecting…

a reply to: Zaphod58

They burn much more efficiently than a vehicle engine.

Like you said, they burn… burning results in emissions

.

a reply to: payt69

You must have missed even clicking thisLINK PLUS NOT READING what was written on top of that page. THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT HUMIDITY IN THE AIR TO EVEN SUPPORT A CONTRAIL< OR TO LET ONE BE CREATED!!!!!! I am going to agree that we disagree. Live and let live. Someday when this crap smacks you right in the face, remember this Thread. Have a good one, Syx.

"And Remember, It's Just a Ride..."

a reply to: network dude

the toxins are not seen, and exist from engine start to engine stop.

"Turning and burning"?

ETA: (Tell Zaphod that)

a reply to: SyxPak

There is no set point where a contrail will persist. If the RHI is over 100% it will persist.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The difference is that the natural cloud hadn't formed yet. The conditions were there for them to form, they just hadn't before that plane went over. If you were to analyze a natural cirrus, and a contrail, the difference would be minimal.

"The conditions were already there."

I do not believe ALL the conditions were there or we would have seen them before the plane flew over.

The plane caused the cloud cover. It cannot get more cut and dry.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm not deflecting anything. A contrail is a man made cirrus cloud.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The RHI was almost to the point that a cloud would form. After the plane flew over, the RHI was pushed over the point that a cloud would form. If the RHI wasn't already close to that level the contrail wouldn't form.

a reply to: intrptr

Yes it does. And there are a lot more emissions at ground level than we'll ever see at altitude.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree. But there was NOT even enough moisture in the air for a contrail to even form, well a real one where it dissappates within a few moments. So a line of clouds across the skies there were not contrails. The end... I'm loggin off to take care of some real life stuff, so if you reply and I don not respond, it does not mean I am ignoring you or running away from this discussion. Thanx for remaining civil, and I hate to use caps/screaming, but it seemed as if You didn't even see what I had written before I resorted to hollering. Thanx for understanding. Later for now, Syx.