Go Fund Me- Chemtrail testing?

a reply to: AdamuBureido

if chemtrails weren't real, why the constant use by naysayers of such despicable, underhanded tactics among others?

And which despicable, underhand tactic would that be...Denying Ignorance?

a reply to: R3zn8D

That is simply my opinion after reviewing all the facts.

Actually if you reviewed the facts and this is your conclusion...you may want to re evaluate the way you interpret reviewing all the facts.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: R3zn8D

That is simply my opinion after reviewing all the facts.

Actually if you reviewed the facts and this is your conclusion...you may want to re evaluate the way you interpret reviewing all the facts.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, nor have you actually reviewed any of the material I provided based on your focus on one brochure from one additive, which contains two SARA 313 chemicals (Superfund toxic) and two Trade Secret ingredients.

All of these additives have toxic and carcinogenic components, no long term bioacculation studies have been done on aircraft pollutants, despite barium salts from STADIS 450 being used since Dupont introduced it in 1962.

If you are truly interested in the truth you will actually read through the endless pit that is my timeline's references.

You can lead a horse to water...

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: R3zn8D
So.... when the white lines are gone, will you care about the invisible chicken fat, algae trails?

The white trails will be there until you find a way to change the laws of physics.
www.wrh.noaa.gov...

Cause they would never route flights in a particular way to create contrails where they wanted them:
www.dlr.de...



like avoiding ISSRs:
www.pa.op.dlr.de...

Or change the fuel content to get rid of contrails:
www.nasa.gov...

ACCESS II had two main goals:
Measure and characterize the amount of soot and other pollutants generated by burning jet fuel (with either high or low sulfur content) that was blended with alternate biofuel.
Gather basic data on contrail formation in the wake of a jet aircraft and study how or if burning blended fuel altered the contrail formation in any way.

So you still think that contrails are just going to be there cause they are just like "totally natural?"

/SMH

like avoiding ISSRs:
www.pa.op.dlr.de...

Avoiding those will make flying less efficient. You;ll have to burn nore fuel to get where you want to go, which makes flying more expensive, while it also causes more pollution (since you'll have to burn more fuel during the detour).

Or change the fuel content to get rid of contrails:
www.nasa.gov...

ACCESS II had two main goals:
Measure and characterize the amount of soot and other pollutants generated by burning jet fuel (with either high or low sulfur content) that was blended with alternate biofuel.
Gather basic data on contrail formation in the wake of a jet aircraft and study how or if burning blended fuel altered the contrail formation in any way.

So you still think that contrails are just going to be there cause they are just like "totally natural?"

/SMH

Ok so here's NASA conducting research in how to lessen pollution and find ways to to have fewer contrails, and somehow to you that's evidence that contrails are made on purpose?

The term Chemtrail is laden with baggage due to it being originally coined for the purpose of a ridiculous scam that only people ignorant of aviation would fall for (if those white lines in the sky don't fade immediately, but linger and form patterns then they were deliberately sprayed as part of a secret govt operation, etc).

Subsequent efforts to widen the meaning to sustain the scam haven't changed this and the original definition STILL holds true for most chemtrail believers if the evidence of this and other sites is representative.

Contrails, chaff, jet exhaust, cloud seeding, air pollution and other random elements that people try to draw in all have one big drawback. They are all separate, known and already specifically defined in their own right. People with concerns have been studying and discussing these things for decades already without ever feeling the need to try and call them chemtrails, we all know what they are. When using something's actual name, the people you're talking to tend know what you're on about.

Therefore anyone that chooses to use the word chemtrail as a vague, meaningless catch-all when discussing any one or similar known topics immediately undermines their own credibility and deserves any scorn they get as a result.

The determined effort by some on here to lasso some shreds of credibility and shackle them to the word chemtrail, because it suits their purposes, is as transparent as it is pathetic.

The "if I say it loud and often enough or post walls and walls of text it makes it true" approach is also deeply flawed.

a reply to: R3zn8D

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, nor have you actually reviewed any of the material I provided

Ok, let's review your inventory of 'clues'.

barium salts from STADIS 450 being used since Dupont introduced it in 1962.

Composition
... Stadis 450 contains no metals.

Treat Rate
Normal range: 0.5 to 5.0 mg/litre

*Warning* Link to pdf www.fmv.se...

Please explain.

a reply to: R3zn8D

please explain how your aledged " barium salts " are disolved in the STADIS 450 composition

a reply to: R3zn8D

If you are truly interested in the truth you will actually read through the endless pit that is my timeline's references.

And yet when you only post what you think backs your claims makes your timeline a bit useless as when yoiu actually do the research it shows you cherry pick your evidence.

Which I showed you in more than one thread that you have tried to imply your proof as truth.

I feel like I am in bizzaro world. Three poster who don't believe in chemtrails anymore than I do, arguing against trying to prove contrails are contrails.

What's next? Pepperoni pizza is better with no pepperoni?

This might drive a man to drink. (good thing it's the weekend)

a reply to: R3zn8D

oh FFS - you dont understand a single thing you read - do you ? cCO2 + h2o

Or change the fuel content to get rid of contrails:

blended // bio-fuels will not change the contrail characteristics of an engine

contrail = WATER - water comes from combustion of hydrocarbons

02 + HxCy = CO2 + H2O

the point of blended and bio-fuels is to reduce suplphur and nitorgen compound polutants in the exhaust

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: R3zn8D

Thanks for lots of text. this thread is about the idea to fund a flight to test trails to end the chemtrail debate. Do you have any thoughts or ideas about that?

I do, Joe Rogan. I think he would be interested in doing a show about this. He could be instrumental in getting prominent members of the 'chemmunity' on board with this, or having them forever viewed as suffering from chronic sand-induced vaginitis if they wuss out.

Does anyone here know someone who knows Joe?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

That's a great idea. I'll see if I can find a way to get a message to him.

There has been studies or samples taken and they are releasing heavy metals. Aluminum being one of them. Two other metals as well. Too much of these metals building up in the brain leads to Dementia and Alzheimers disease studies have shown. Hence the wide array of older adults with these conditions. HARP is used in conjunction with these metals to create heat in turn controlling the jet stream thus manipulating the weather. a reply to: network dude

a reply to: Schneblet

Awesome, what studies?

a reply to: Schneblet

HARP is used in conjunction with these metals to create heat in turn controlling the jet stream thus manipulating the weather.

Just wondering how HAARP does that when it is closed down and dismantled?

Morning , I would donate to this. Currently I'm a chemmie/anti.vaxxer/gun toting/bible thumping Pro.lifer. the chemmie forum is my favorite. I try to s/f all of threads in this forum. Great effort on both sides.pm me the payment details, and I will donate.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: and14263
Do it. Set it up. Great idea.

You won't see any donations from the Chemmys though.

Tempted to set one up myself and just pocket any money donated.

Another fine example of your ethics and integrity.

Thank you for sharing.

Greetings:

Thank you ALL for sharing.

This debate definitely has both sides in a tither.

It seems that there is a concerted effort to not tie chemtrails with geoengineering efforts.

Which brings me to ask the question: Do the anti-chemtrail believers deny that any geoengineering is going on?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

originally posted by: thorfourwinds
Greetings:

Thank you ALL for sharing.

This debate definitely has both sides in a tither.

It seems that there is a concerted effort to not tie chemtrails with geoengineering efforts.

There's as much of an effort going on not to tie chemtrails with geoengineering as there is an effort going on not to tie unicorns with the Mars program.

See the problem is: chemtrails don't exist. That is to say: there's no clear definition of what a chemtrail is. Most chemmies point up to CONtrails and tell that the reason they persist is because they're chemtrails. They don't seem to understand that a contrail is just like any other cirrus cloud, and hence has the same properties.

So you tell me what a chemtrail is, and I'll tell you whether is has anything to do with geo engineering.

Which brings me to ask the question: Do the anti-chemtrail believers deny that any geoengineering is going on?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

That's kindof loaded language. To deny that it's going implies that it's going on, but we haven't seen any evidence for it. Once again, chemmies point to contrails as evidence for geoengineering. That's the latest thing, you see.. geo engineering. It used to be other things, such as mind control, dumbing people down, poisoning/killing us, chemwebs, but since those stances have become untenable (thoroughly debunked), 'chemtrails' are now associated with 'geoengineering', apparently in an attempt to lend some credibility to the subject.

Well they must've been 'geoengineering' as long as planes are capable of flying high enough to create contrails then. Those bombers in the 40's sure didn't like the contrails they were leaving, and would've done anything to prevent them from happening.

But alas, such ponderings never seem to bother chemmies. They can't accept that contrails are a byproduct of aviation, and therefore the sillyness will go on and on, and keep shifting to whatever the 'theory' du jour is. Can't wait to see what they will come up with next