Chemtrails Exposed! NASA Scientist Admits to Spraying Lithium Points to Wallops Flight Facility

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yep. Got me there, nobody here has been to the center of the galaxy either and yet there it is.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Actually, that's not right. I recently learned from the flat earth crowd that all that is fake. The Earth is the center of everything, and there are no stars, it's an illusion.

I am not sure I believe them, but in their defense, the theory is as logical as the worldwide spraying that's been kept perfectly secret for over 20 years. With not 1 leak or picture. not 1......evah.

gotta go feed the unicorn. He gets pissy if he misses his rainbow soup.

Looks like we're at the end of yet another chemtrail thread. Now all we have to do is wait for the next one, which will inevitably rehash all the same nonsense again...

'Contrails never last any longer than a few seconds'

'When I was young, I never saw contrails like these (and 'm way older than you, and always used to be out all day every day, so I know the sky!)'

'After some chemtrails appeared, my friends' uncles' dog got sick. Call that a coincidence?'

and of course the obligatory links to geoengineeringwatch and/or WITWATS.. which apparently still pass as a credible sources in those circles..

There will be believers who never respond to requests for facts, don't know what a cirrus cloud is, don't actually know anything close to the physics involved in relation to contrails, etc..

Anyone wanna place bets on any of these elements being present in the next thread? It just repeats over and over again. We might as well make repository of default answers, and post them in every thread..

Oh wait.. that's already present in the form of metabunk, but of course metabunk is run by a very well paid government shill! It HAS to be! How could it be otherwise? I mean who else would spend so much free time debunking this stuff? Couldn't just be some guys' hobby right?

Oh well let's see what happens next.. It seems Michael Murphy is attempting to get some paragliders up to jet cruise level and have them sample 'chemtrails'. That should be good for a few laughs

stateofthenation2012.com...

a reply to: payt69

blinks .....................blinks again

so the idiots now claim that coal fly ash is captured in powerstation scrubbers - only to be then loaded onto " chemtrail jets " to be sprayed back into the atmosphere

any they wonder why we laugh at them

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: payt69

blinks .....................blinks again

so the idiots now claim that coal fly ash is captured in powerstation scrubbers - only to be then loaded onto " chemtrail jets " to be sprayed back into the atmosphere

any they wonder why we laugh at them

Ah well nobody said that any of these 'theories' need to make sense or be logical. It just needs to sound sinister, and make the gubmint look bad.. or something along those lines.

In chemtrail land, the thing that really counts is not science, but whether people 'trust' a certain disseminator of doom. If they trust you (that is, you say the things they like to hear), the followers will support you. Once you deviate from the canon, they spit you out (see the Wigington vs Murphy debacle, or Ian Simpson vs Max Bliss, for instance).

As for the whole coal fly ash chemtrail thing, that was the brainchild of Marvin Herndon, if I'm not mistaken. He wrote a 'paper' on it, which was published, and later retracted because of the many errors it contained:

retractionwatch.com...

But of course to the true believers, such a retraction only means that Herndons' theory is right on! Confirmation bias is a strong ally to such minds..

Ah well.. it's a bit frustrating at times. I guess the inertia of a beliefsystem is an underestimated force.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Yep. Got me there, nobody here has been to the center of the galaxy either and yet there it is.

Guarantee the center of the galaxy has more science backing it than any chemtrail has ever had.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well, well, well...looky here, right off of Smithsonian.com, published on Dec. 16th, 2015.

If you go outside on a clear day and look up toward the sun—being careful to block out the bright disk with your thumb—you might see a hazy white region surrounding our star.

This haze is caused by airplanes, and it is gradually whitening blue skies, says Charles Long of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. “We might be actually conducting some unintentional geoengineering here,” Long said at a press conference this week at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

Geoengineering involves the manipulation of an environmental process in such a way, usually deliberate, that it affects the Earth's climate.

1. 'Geoengineering'
2. 'Caused by airplanes'
3. 'Usually deliberate'

There must be something in the atmosphere scattering the sun’s light. “Small ice particles fit the bill,” he (Long)said.

Long thinks air traffic is the most likely source of those particles. Exhaust from an airplane engine contains aerosols and water vapor. High in the atmosphere, where it is extremely cold, the particles serve as nuclei for ice crystals, which form the bright contrails seen in a plane’s wake. Some of these contrails, scientists have found, CAN contribute to climate change.

Can...not might or may...can, so sayeth the Smithsonian.

Contrails. Hmmmm. What chemicals, produced from jet fuel, will be found in those icy particulates hazing up our sky?

I knew our skies were different. I'll settle for 'contrails can contribute to climate change'.

Source

a reply to: NewzNose

Contrails. Hmmmm. What chemicals, produced from jet fuel, will be found in those icy particulates hazing up our sky?

Frozen dihydrogen monoxide, primarily. As your external quote specifies. But if you want the particulars (Get it? It sounds like particulates). The problems of jet exhaust (like other exhausts produced by fossil burning fuel engines) occur all the time but mostly at takeoff, visible or not. "Chemtrails" have nothing to do with it. Under that criterion you would want to consider that every car, truck, and bus (non electric) in your town is producing "chemtrails."

Maybe you have a solution to offer?
patarnott.com...
www.latimes.com...

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

'contrails can contribute to climate change'.

Well we know that, it's just the contrail deniers who refuse to believe it

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well, well, well...looky here, right off of Smithsonian.com, published on Dec. 16th, 2015.

If you go outside on a clear day and look up toward the sun—being careful to block out the bright disk with your thumb—you might see a hazy white region surrounding our star.

This haze is caused by airplanes, and it is gradually whitening blue skies, says Charles Long of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. “We might be actually conducting some unintentional geoengineering here,” Long said at a press conference this week at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

Geoengineering involves the manipulation of an environmental process in such a way, usually deliberate, that it affects the Earth's climate.

1. 'Geoengineering'
2. 'Caused by airplanes'
3. 'Usually deliberate'

There must be something in the atmosphere scattering the sun’s light. “Small ice particles fit the bill,” he (Long)said.

Long thinks air traffic is the most likely source of those particles. Exhaust from an airplane engine contains aerosols and water vapor. High in the atmosphere, where it is extremely cold, the particles serve as nuclei for ice crystals, which form the bright contrails seen in a plane’s wake. Some of these contrails, scientists have found, CAN contribute to climate change.

Can...not might or may...can, so sayeth the Smithsonian.

Contrails. Hmmmm. What chemicals, produced from jet fuel, will be found in those icy particulates hazing up our sky?

I knew our skies were different. I'll settle for 'contrails can contribute to climate change'.

Source

You must've missed the headline:

'Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental Geoengineering'

That about sums it up. They're talking about contrails and ice particles, not 'chemicals produced from jet fuel'. That's you injecting your chemtrail fantasies into this article.

“We’ve got a mystery here,” Long said. There must be something in the atmosphere scattering the sun’s light. “Small ice particles fit the bill,” he said.

Long thinks air traffic is the most likely source of those particles. Exhaust from an airplane engine contains aerosols and water vapor. High in the atmosphere, where it is extremely cold, the particles serve as nuclei for ice crystals, which form the bright contrails seen in a plane’s wake. Some of these contrails, scientists have found, can contribute to climate change.

So in fact there's nothing new here. This research into contrails has been going on for quite a while, and that's a good thing. The problems arise when people deny the effect of contrails, because they don't believe in persisting contrails (a youtube video told them so). Luckily that's not the case in circles where actual scientific research into these matters is conducted.

a reply to: NewzNose

Just so you are clear, this is the kind of thing that has been happening with the chemtrail debate for years. Some bit of factual science comes out, clearly helps explain contrails, but mentions a key word, and chemtrail folks pounce on it, misread/misunderstand it, and then claim it's some sort of proof that "they" are spraying.

It's a shame more chemtrail folks don't read this and try really hard to understand it. More of this type of science, and they would not have the need to invent their own version.

a reply to: NewzNose

did you miss the events of september 2001 ?????????????

you know - the time that multiople independant studies confirmed that jet contrails affected the climate ?????

a reply to: Phage

Did you want to speak to the new findings of the Smithsonian or just regurgitate the same old rhetoric?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Argue with the Smithsonian.

a reply to: network dude

You can't debunk the new science? Figured.

a reply to: payt69

You must have missed the article. CAN, was the word used.

The article trumps the headline.

a reply to: NewzNose

why would i argue with the smithsonian ???

they have made no claims that i disagree with

you are the one injecting chemtrail dellusions into real climatology

a reply to: NewzNose

So now contrails affecting the weather, which has never been denied, proves chemtrails are real. That's a hell of a leap.

a reply to: NewzNose

What's to debunk? They have been looking at this for years.


you do understand what you posted right?

a reply to: network dude

But... but contrails NEVER did that back then!