Whatever they are, they are not normal cloud formations

Oh, I understand science alright, I also understand what you are doing
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

a reply to: shycitizen

Do you really?

originally posted by: shycitizen
INEVERQUIT, don't you wonder why this person is spending so much time and energy trying to disprove to you what you have already noticed and seen with your own eyes? a reply to: 3danimator2014

I'm sure that member is quite capable of offering their own opinion if they want to. Why don't you offer something to the thread instead of just trying to stir other members into an argument?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: shycitizen

It's amazing to me yow many people seem unable to grasp elementary science. Kind of scary.

Just like people that think there wer contrails in 1908 from propellar planes.

I don't think anybody thinks that. Nothing was flying high enough in 1908. Or is it that you don't think propeller planes can leave contrails? If it's that, why can't they?

Burning fuel creates water. You get water dripping out of your car exhaust in a morning when it's still cold (comes out as invisible vapour when everything has warmed up). There's no difference between burning fuel in a car engine, aircraft piston engine, or jet engine, they all create water. Water freezes when the temperature is below zero, this is how contrails are made. Is that the basic science you are referring to?

Contrails have been left since aircraft were first able to fly in air where they could be left. It's the atmospheric conditions that determine if a contrail is produced, not whether there is a propellor or not. Besides, there are also turboprops consider. Mini jet engines that drive propellers. You see those on aircraft ranging from private planes up to transports like the C-130 Hercules. They too produce contrails when high enough. Anything with an engine will.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think only a jet would to this?

a reply to: Sometimes

Where has anyone said there were in 1908?

And while we're on it. Why do people take it as an insult when it's pointed out that they aren't understanding something and then post something like this

originally posted by: Sometimes

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: shycitizen

It's amazing to me yow many people seem unable to grasp elementary science. Kind of scary.

Just like people that think there wer contrails in 1908 from propellar planes.

Which proves the exact thing they are railing against?

Not understanding something is not an insult, it's not analogous to intelligence in any way. There are plenty of topics I like reading on ATS would I wouldn't pretend to fully understand the basis of them all. There is, however, an undeniable and obvious correlation between people who believe in chemtrails and their lack of understanding of the science at work when it comes to aviation and weather. Scoffingly referring to people who say that propeller planes can make contrails, as if they are wrong, is a prime example.

a reply to: shycitizen

I wonder why chemtrail believers invest ZERO time into finding out what contrails are. Without fail, they always show incredible negligence when it comes to understanding aviation/meteorology, despite the subject of their beliefs demanding that you know quite a bit about it if you want to at least be able to discriminate between what's normal behaviour for a contrail, and what isn't.

But what happens is that over and over again they point at contrails, and then go on to declare them to be 'chemtrails', because they know nothing about the scientific bits and everything about paranoid conspiracy stuff.

They can only see things in terms of conspiracy thinking. Anyone who doesn't sing along with their tune is a government agent, and spending time fighting lunacy on a site like this is suspicious in their eyes.

Look we live in a world where crazy ideologies colour our world on a daily basis. We don't need any more crazyness such as this: www.metabunk.org...

I actually know a lot more about science than you obviously think. I also am intelligent. You know the problem is this. A person comes on to a forum to actually discuss something, but what happens is that they get insulted, attacked and generally called an idiot if their opinion differs from a troll's. Anyway, I suppose ultimately the beauty of it is that we can come onto a forum and say what's on our mind, and that at least is something we might not be able to do somewhere else. So, peace to the instigators and those who think that they are the only ones with brains I have better things to do than to argue with you or listen to your insults.

originally posted by: shycitizen
I actually know a lot more about science than you obviously think. I also am intelligent. You know the problem is this. A person comes on to a forum to actually discuss something, but what happens is that they get insulted, attacked and generally called an idiot if their opinion differs from a troll's. Anyway, I suppose ultimately the beauty of it is that we can come onto a forum and say what's on our mind, and that at least is something we might not be able to do somewhere else. So, peace to the instigators and those who think that they are the only ones with brains

I have better things to do than to argue with you or listen to your insults.

If you knew that much about science then you would know how ludicrous chemtrails are. This is almost guaranteed. No one is calling you an idiot.

a reply to: shycitizen

Where have you been called an idiot or your intelligence called into doubt? I'll tell you something I do see. I see a lot of people post about chemtrails and then, when something about what they've written is politely explained in detail or further questions are asked, respond that that they have been attacked and called names and therefore refuse to continue with the debate when it's plain to everyone else reading the thread that no such thing has happened at all. I've seen lots of that. It's like some people are offended merely by being responded to.

originally posted by: shycitizen
I actually know a lot more about science than you obviously think. I also am intelligent. You know the problem is this. A person comes on to a forum to actually discuss something, but what happens is that they get insulted, attacked and generally called an idiot if their opinion differs from a troll's.

Similarly, anytime someone explains what contrails are in a chemtrail discussion, the person explaining the contrail is called a shill, or they say "the chemtrail deniers are all here right on time!"

Perhaps the reason so many of us have the exact same scientific explanation for those puffy white lines in the sky that are produced by high-altitude aircraft (contrails) is because that explanation is the ONE explanation that has real science to back it up, while the chemtrailers definition of what those lines are varies depending on who you talk to, and comes without the evidence to back up those definitions.

I suppose no one has gone into the clip for more than 5 mins....

Anyway, read this...

Because the program has been carried out on such a massive scale, skeptics might find Snowden’s story unbelievable. However, Snowden explained that the chemtrail program has been incredibly easy to hide, especially with the cooperation of jet fuel companies, a crucial part of the military-industrial complex. Snowden said, “The chemicals which are released by passenger airplanes have been covertly introduced as ‘additives,’ supposedly to improve efficiency. Only as the plane reaches cruising velocity does the heat and atmospheric pressure cause a chemical reaction that synthesizes the top secret carbon-trapping molecule. This process is imperfect, and many of the by-products are incredibly dangerous even in trace quantities. The most dangerous thing is that although chemtrails are keeping the climate of the U.S. reasonably stable, citizens are bombarded every day with an invisible rain of carbon-laden molecules, and the effect on health is totally unknown.”

What he is actually talking about all points to nanofibers that are used for such purposes. Don`t believe me? Do your research, then go back and watch the clip.

If you don`t have time, just read the short version here.

Again, I`m not saying this is happening but it could well be happening and we wouldn`t even know about it.

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
I suppose no one has gone into the clip for more than 5 mins....

Anyway, read this...

Because the program has been carried out on such a massive scale, skeptics might find Snowden’s story unbelievable. However, Snowden explained that the chemtrail program has been incredibly easy to hide, especially with the cooperation of jet fuel companies, a crucial part of the military-industrial complex. Snowden said, “The chemicals which are released by passenger airplanes have been covertly introduced as ‘additives,’ supposedly to improve efficiency. Only as the plane reaches cruising velocity does the heat and atmospheric pressure cause a chemical reaction that synthesizes the top secret carbon-trapping molecule. This process is imperfect, and many of the by-products are incredibly dangerous even in trace quantities. The most dangerous thing is that although chemtrails are keeping the climate of the U.S. reasonably stable, citizens are bombarded every day with an invisible rain of carbon-laden molecules, and the effect on health is totally unknown.”

What he is actually talking about all points to nanofibers that are used for such purposes. Don`t believe me? Do your research, then go back and watch the clip.

If you don`t have time, just read the short version here.

Again, I`m not saying this is happening but it could well be happening and we wouldn`t even know about it.

I'm fairly certain that neither Snowden himself or the files he leaked never mentioned chemtrails.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

If you don`t have time, just read the short version here.

Your first quote says that Snowden says "chemtrails" are for geoengineering. Your second source says that they are

part of some secret transhumanist mind control conspiracy.

Two different "versions."

a reply to: Phage

Hehe, it`s called connecting the dots. Of course he won`t talk about it because he is unsure this is indeed the case, but think about it, is it impossible?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Are you sure?

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Yes.
Here is the "source."
chronicle.su...

chronicle.su...

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d

"Only as the plane reaches cruising velocity does the heat and atmospheric pressure cause a chemical reaction that synthesizes the top secret carbon-trapping molecule"

I'm amazed at how the description of a chemtrail keeps evolving to encompass the criticisms of those of us who try to explain that they are just contrails.

When the whole "chemtrail" thing first started, there was none of this "the secret materials in chemtrails can only be seen at high altitudes" stuff. As for the "heat", does this mean the heat from the jet engines, or heat from the "secret spray nozzle" or what?

What heat?

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

What he is actually talking about all points to nanofibers that are used for such purposes. Don`t believe me? Do your research, then go back and watch the clip.

And you have done your research?

I found something that shows your source is full of it...

Apparently you can send samples of these types of fibers to the Carnicom Institute for examination and detailed scientific analysis, but they are the only people to be found who engage in this area of inquiry, and as such their efficacy, too is less than 100% dependable. They do have a breadth of information on the subject for further review, and in absence of any other credible institutions offering their professional services to resolve this mystery or to refute the credibility of Carnicom, their information stands out for people looking to understand this.

First thing Carnicom Institute is a joke and they are not a scientifically based anything...and anyone who thinks they are is only fooling themselves.

I believe you need to do a bit better research if this is what you offer as doing research.