Chemtrails over the South West of the UK

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

But it's up to the chemtrail group to prove they exist. Not once have they proved they exist. Everything that has been pointed at and declared a chemtrail has been explained, with proof, that it isn't a chemtrail.

I can say with certainty that unicorns don't exist. I can also say with certainty that chemtrails don't exist.

Your arguments are purely semantic.

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: network dude

But your taking one element of the theory and focusing soley on that. Logical for sure, but not in anyway disproving the chemtrail theory.

Lets pretend for arguments sake that i present a theory that the reason people are being to feel Ill, the reason birds died in mass and fell from the sky etc... is because of chemtrails. These are chemicals stealthly distributed throughout specific parts of the map for various reasons. Now we know this is very much a possibility. I did not say a tree unrooted itself from the ground and attempted to mate with my porch.

Now lets say someone comes to me and says "They are Contrails not Chemtrails"... What part of this would sway me from my original theory? This theory has caught on and other people may have started all kinds of disinformation that veers away from the starting ideal; Yy original theory though was about chemicals being "dropped/spread" across certain area's, I never said the contrails themselves contained the chemicals. Whether you drop chemicals from an aircraft or not you will leave Contrails, they are unrelated in terms of proof and dismissive proof.

I am not sure what your point it, but try this. Planes fly and if conditions are right, they will make contrails, and those contrails could persist. That is fact, it's undisputed.

Now if you want to created a theory of some nefarious act taking place, that's fine. Using the old, "the government has done bad things in the past so....." is valid to a point. It proves that bad people are capable of bad things. But we kind of already knew that. In order for your theory to have anything of substance, you need some evidence. Otherwise, it's an opinion, and a weak one at that.

The chemtrail conspiracy originated due to a lie. Someone said that contrails can't persist, therefore, any trail that lasts longer than "X" must be a chemtrail. For some reason, that took off. Apparent a whole group of people forgot that libraries existed, and science was a real thing. Since that part is easily proven false with a quick internet link, a new and improved theory was needed.

Geo-engineering. Regardless of what facts exist about it, the same people who spread the initial "contrails don't last" lie, now spread the "it's SRM man, just look up" lie. Now you venture back into the proving a negative. Prove they aren't spraying for SRM. All we can do is look at a specific trail, verify the plane that made it, and realize that a commercial plane with passengers and luggage, isn't likely to also have thousands of tons of chemical.

So, what is your theory based on.

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: network dude

cloud seeding is real. Crop dusting is real. Cow farts are real. All three examples are of a chemical being released into the air. If you call all three chemtrails, that is your right, but it doesn't make the white lines formed behind airplanes at 30,000 anything other than contrails made of ice particles.

Not too sure why you are trying to put words in my mouth but that is childish. "If you call all three chemtrails" I did not mention crop dusting or cow farts in any of my prior posts. Are you a politician?

Cheers, Nuts

you seem to want to rename contrails based on H2O being a chemical. As I said, that is your right, but if you do that, aren't cow farts, and car exhaust, and the mouth full of stuff that is emitted during a violent sneeze also a chemtrail?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, only pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

Sure, contrails are chemtrails based on water being a chemical. What does that prove again?

a reply to: NewzNose

Prove it scientifically?

a reply to: AVtech34

I have not said that it runs through the engines, nor that every civilian and military flight has a system installed. I actually am not a chemtrail believer or follower. I do think it is ignorant to tell people that jet exhaust is merely ice crystals, it simply is not.
As far as atomizing things it produces a much quicker reaction in most chemical reactions as the smaller the particulate the greater the surface area available for the reaction to occur. Maybe atomizing in this case would be a good thing...

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: network dude

you seem to want to rename contrails based on H2O being a chemical.

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth, that shows very poor form dude. Not once do I mention anything about h20 being a chemical? I am more so stating that because contrails are comprised of more then just frozen h20, that saying it is only frozen water is damaging and inaccurate.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: RevolutionAnon
I always thought unicorns were proven to be rhinos based on ancient texts. Might just be me.

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: network dude

you seem to want to rename contrails based on H2O being a chemical.

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth, that shows very poor form dude. Not once do I mention anything about h20 being a chemical? I am more so stating that because contrails are comprised of more then just frozen h20, that saying it is only frozen water is damaging and inaccurate.

Cheers, Nuts

OK, then please explain what a contrail is made of.

you can maybe explain what is incorrect with this link:
science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

thanks.


ETA:
A pre-emptive strtike on the next post.

a reply to: TerryDon79

My arguments are purely semantic - My arguments are relating to meaning in logic. I take that as a compliment.

You need to understand

1.I do not believe in this theory personally
2. My original argument that saying "chemtrails are actually contrails" is pointless, it proves nothing, it sways nobody. This is the definitive focus point of my entire Input into this. I care nothing about proving or disproving this, I only wanted to point out this has been around since the 1990's, Say Chems are Cons is pointless and achieves nothing.
3.Contrails are a universal and persistent occurence in this theory, Whether contrails are chemtrails or chemtrails are contrails, It changes nothing about either the provability of this theory, or the disprovability.
4. People say this theory started from Contrails lasting for longer periods and this is for the most part true, Also a drafted paper on "Owning the weather" helped to support these claims. Now though it has indeed escalated into solar radiation management and other such things. Geo's have even recieved threats over this, crazy for sure.

But as a side note you cannot say with any certainty that Unicorns did not exist. If i had told you many years ago that dinosaurs used to exist you would have probably branded me a witch. Even finding evidence of them does not guarantee understanding.

Much later, in 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a "giant," but was probably from a dinosaur.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Very possible, or a combination of different animals just in a more elegent, less noticable way than say a sphinx.
But a horse to existing in distant past and possessing a piercing horn is not improbable, I would say dinosaurs such as the giant t-rex would be harder to comprehend than a horse with a hardened bone horn.

a reply to: network dude

TextContrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust.

So the very first line where it says "(aerosols) that exist in the aircraft exhaust" That is the other that I am referring to, water vapour needs a particulate to condense to in order to gain in size.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: [post=20687122]network dude[/post

Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles.

After reading more of the link you provided it goes on to provide the exact same information that I already have been posting.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: IronNuts

Yes. Did you read the edited link I included? It explains the aerosols, how they get there, where they come from, and what they are made of. You are correct in that the water ice, needs something to nucleate around. But then, that's such a microscopic part, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to what a contrail really is. It's a man made cirrus cloud. Cirrus clouds are also water ice, that has nucleated around aerosols. But there doesn't seem to be the same fear associated with cirrus clouds.

So now that we agree that contrails are almost 100% water ice, with a very, very tiny part dust, what do you propose we do from this point? Should we try to get the scientific community to re-label everything a chemtrail?

I am interested to understand your goal here.

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: [post=20687122]network dude[/post

Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles.

After reading more of the link you provided it goes on to provide the exact same information that I already have been posting.

Cheers, Nuts

Except that aircraft exhaust does not equal contrail. Aircraft exhaust is present from engine start to engine stop, contrails only form in high air that is conducive for trail formation, and are largely water ice. (see, I gave you a nod there with the largely part)

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Shiloh7

What made you come to the conclusion they were chemtrails? Did you do any tests on them?

Or was it a case of "I looked at some clouds, therefore chemtrails!"?

He probably did the same amount of tests that you did to determine chemtrails aren't real!

Best answer ever. We have hard core sceptics and hard core conspirators. And true is somewhere in the middle. It always is.

You shouldn't reply to a persons post with negativity unless you have proof they are wrong in their assumption. In this case you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
a reply to: TerryDon79

originally posted by: gimcrackery
You shouldn't reply to a persons post with negativity unless you have proof they are wrong in their assumption. In this case you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
a reply to: TerryDon79

The post you are replying to (my first reply in this thread) were questions.

Also, I do know what I'm talking about. There is no proof of chemtrails. Simple.

a reply to: Shiloh7
Moral of the story....its normal. I think you may have been swayed by your son's enthusiastic misguided knowledge on the conspiracy that is chemtrails.

It has been debunked in every thread to date on ATS.

a reply to: gimcrackery
What a strange statement.
Can I not be negative to people with delusions of grandeur , schizos or those who believe in flat earth.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Can I not be negative to people with delusions of grandeur , schizos or those who believe in flat earth.

Not unless you can prove they are wrong. Years ago you would of believed the Earth was flat and mocked anyone who said otherwise. Learn to remember that.