First peer reviewed published study on 'chemtrails' finds no evidence of a cover-up

a reply to: waynos

We are saying that there is no reason to think that aircraft contrails are a poisonous spray sent to krill us all in a secret plot by TPTB to kill off their own labour force.

That's a straw man argument. I don't think people who are legitimately concerned about weather modification are saying that either. If they are, they are part of disinformation efforts, knowingly or unknowingly.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: boncho

Sorry the truth hurts...

As mentioned already, I just googled the first site that was advocating for discussion on chemtrails but referring to it as geo-engineering, as the I've seen in previous 'chemtrail' sites, very weak arguments, many seemed co-opted.

I wasn't aware of the guys history. But here you are pretending like I am, in which case, it's irrelevant, because the entire point is that if someone is in control, and discrediting a movement, they are very likely paid to be there... or fulfilling a position, if by complete coincidence or social engineering.

So here's another one instead

When jet aircraft switched from gasoline based fuel to kerosene (diesel) fuel the aluminum content of the fuels skyrocketed. See this chart Trace Element and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analyses of Jet Engine Fuels: Jet A, JP5, and JP8:

Contrails creating "accidental" geo-engineering says Smithsonian.

So if the fuel used in modern Jet aircraft is causing "accidental" geo-egineering, it would go without saying that if there was a point in recent history where they changed the fuel mixture or redesigned in with chemicals that are affecting emission, it seems logical that there might be concern over those efforts. The way I look at it is, if I was hired to achieve the same thing (some objective of spraying, wide scale), how would I do it? Adjusting the fuel mixture in commercial flights would be one method.

The other of course would be military flights, which is something no one can "debunk" because they are classified. The military has shown interest in geo-egnineering, so it remains a possibility, no matter how hard people whine about "no proof", as its a logical fallacy to demand proof of something that is not legally allowed to be disclosed.

Any way, if the concern were warranted, there'd have to be something to show there was an effort to change that fuel mixture....

Why add nanoparticles? The idea, says lead author R. B. Anand, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the National Institute of Technology in Tiruchirappalli, India, is that because of their high surface-to-volume ratio, the nanoparticles—which, in the study, had an average diameter of 51 billionths of a meter—have more reactive surfaces, allowing them to act as more efficient chemical catalysts, thus increasing fuel combustion. The presence of the particles also increases fuel–air mixing in the fuel, which leads to more complete burning.

In the study, Anand and co-author J. Sadhik Basha first used a mechanical agitator to create an emulsion consisting of jatropha biodiesel (a fuel derived from the crushed seeds of the jatropha plant), water, and a surfactant, then blended in different proportions of alumina nano particles. In addition to outperforming regular biofuel, the nanoparticle-spiked fuels produced significantly lower quantities of nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide gases, and created less smoke.

he researchers are now testing other types of nanoparticles, including hollow carbon nanotubes, and investigating the effects of nano-additives to engine lubrication and cooling systems. One obstacle to the application of this kind of nanotechnology is the high cost of nanoparticle production, says Anand—who also cautions that nanoparticles “should be used judiciously,” because they tend to “entrain into human bodies.“

phys.org...
....

DuPont created STADIS-450 in 1962 and ever since this barium salt fuel additive has been in every single jet fuel tank worldwide. The purpose of STADIS-450 is to reduce static discharge from refueling to keep fuel from exploding. Nonetheless, barium is a serious health concern for everyone on the planet.

So really, I don't see the controversy. Other than everyone has just been arguing Strawman's this whole time. And if you have notorious liers in the field, is it any surprise? The money that this threatens is a lot. The entire Aviation industry & the chemical industry (DuPont is not the most honest or moral company out there)

Essentially the real argument is about exhaust emissions, doesn't really matter the name. To pretend they don't exist is to pretend Santa does.

So while I was speaking in principle earlier in this thread, I think this is the narrowing in of those principles.



I've worked in the chem industry, any trade secret named chemicals are immediate red flags. They purposely add in an additional component sometimes simply to get them unmarked or change chemical compositions to get around other requirements.





Chem business is shady in other words.



Geoengineering the planet



All makes sense now why this topic is so heated.

a reply to: boncho

Alrighty then I raise you this...

www.metabunk.org...

Jim Lee...aka rezn8d...has been debunked for many years.

Mothing more than pushing the same bs as always.

a reply to: boncho

A few others here are on the same rant. They seem to think that since jet emissions are pollution, when we try to explain contrails, we are covering up for the airline industry. That line of thinking only exposes the ignorance on contrails. Which is why we keep having to explain the same thing over, and over.

The visible part you see is a man made cirrus cloud. The invisible part that exists from engine start to engine stop is the pollution. The two are not the same. And since it's only a fringe group of conspiracy people who fall for the chemtrail hoax, it's not taken seriously in real life at all. It's treated like the joke it is. But pollution is real and does really get attention. If you feel that not enough attention is payed, perhaps more effort needs to be taken to remedy that.

www.flyingclean.com...

a reply to: boncho

No, it's not a straw an argument at all. I agree that people with genuine environmental concerns arent saying that, but Chemtrail theory is exactly that the visible white trails in the sky are deliberately sprayed chemtrails, which is nonsense.

They care nothing about pollution or environmental effects (which are NOT visible and constantly present at ALL flight regimes, they simply try to continue to justify their ignorant fear of visible white lines by trying to tie it to a real issue. That's the bit we argue about.

who knows what pollution issues may being ignored while morons point at contrails screaming "look up!"

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: boncho

Alrighty then I raise you this...

www.metabunk.org...

Jim Lee...aka rezn8d...has been debunked for many years.

Mothing more than pushing the same bs as always.

You can't debunk a person. You can debunk a website. If I use the same logic, your post is debunked because ATS has had plenty of hoaxes, and you are an ATS member....

Which is kinda the reason I came into the thread anyway. I was expecting intellectually honest people. I was pointing out the fact you can't 'prove a conspiracy doesn't exit'. You can't prove a negative. The study is a sham. It's intellectually dishonest.

That is why I came into the thread. And, I admit, bad on me for posting sites without knowing the full backstory on them.

There is information in that post, debunk the information. Either JP8 fuel is different from the previous types of fuel or it isn't. Either there are additives in fuel today that differ from the past, which have distinct toxic components or there isn't. Either the total emissions produced today, is having an effect or it isn't. The scientific establishment admits it does have an effect, and the emissions are toxic, so its not something you can really debunk.

The establishment admits itself airline exhaust has "accidentally" geoengineered

a reply to: boncho

JP8 is different then JP4. But the additives are strictly controlled and tested. You can stroll up to your local airport and buy a gallon of the same fuel they used in the planes. If those who believe some nefarious chemicals are in the fuel and can somehow survive the combustion process, only to drift down on the populace and do.....(whatever manufactured evil you prefer), would do this, we would have less of those claims of "it's in the jet fuel!!".

Keep in mind, this conspiracy is about 22 years old now. In 1993 we used JP4 on the USAF planes I fueled. I believe they all used JP8 now.

a reply to: network dude

If those who believe some nefarious chemicals are in the fuel and can somehow survive the combustion process, only to drift down on the populace and do.....(whatever manufactured evil you prefer), would do this, we would have less of those claims of "it's in the jet fuel!!".

After weighing the topic with a tiny bit more info than previous, "its in the fuel" is a stretch (and a straw man, whether in criticism, or pushing it) It's not entirely impossible, but its less likely.

From what Im reading the process produces carbon black, or soot, basically. Like everything else that burns hydrocarbons. The military has plenty of literature about geo-enginerring with carbon black, which is interesting.

I've been in the chem industry before, while my book knowledge is limited (history in the marketing side), I can see metal salts surviving in some form or another. If anything you are more likely to end up with either a base metal or some metal by-product more often after oxidation or a reduction, from metals that start out as complex molecules. Remember leaded gasoline? You also have the natural occurring stuff in hydrocarbons.

Metallic elements contained in coal, oil and gasoline are mobilized by combustion processes and may be emitted into the atmosphere, mainly as components of submicron particles. The information about the amounts, composition and form of metal compounds is reviewed for some fuels and combustion processes. Since metal compounds are always contained in urban air pollutants, they have to be considered whenever an evaluation of biological impact of air pollutants is made.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I've started going over environmental literature in the industry and it seems entirely focused on VOCs and ignores additives completely (or nearly) & it allows a lot of "proprietary recipes".

There is 21 Billion Gallons of Jet Fuel Each Year - ~60 Million Gal/Day - ~220 Million Litre which was recorded in YR2000 -estimated to be double that in 2012. Worldwide is about that *3.35

JP-8 doesn't really have much in it at all. I just realized commercial planes use Jet-A1 or Jet-B though, so Ill have to put some time away to look into that later. In any case, after doing some cursory looks into this (which is something I wanted to avoid) Im getting the sense of a few things.

By the fact this topic is as heavily influenced as it is & the bias it has injected into it, it reeks of an actively controlled subject. Whether its companies like DuPont (responsible for chemicals in the fuel), the fuel makers themselves (unknown) or other corporate interests, idk. Either them or the military. It kinda explains all the years of the straw man chemtrail debates and endless rants on this subject.

It might be actually quite benign, that corporate is afraid of EPA regulation (one woman/mother in Maine literally shut down a fire safety chemical nationally, had it banned after they tried lobbying her state for its use.) I can see efforts to produce false information & straw mans as means to keep the real topic out of public concern. The alternative is that its co-opted by military disinformation, because they are engaged in weather mod programs as it is now, classified & out of public concern. Either are very plausible.

The third scenario I see (and I am hypothesizing this by way of speculating if I or my company was asked to perform an objective of getting [x] into the atmosphere), it could be feasible by having specially outfitted private airports, or adjustments to the regular fuel mixes (ONLY depending on how often they actually check regulation mix requirements)

The consensus Im seeing in the forum, that it exists because of some "conspiracy loons that are clueless about x" just doesn't cut it. It's not realistic. It's drawing heavily on the socially engineered trait which controls peoples worldview, promotes pseudo-skepticism & ad hominem attacks. The charge alone is ad hominem & I admit Ive done it in the past re:chemtrails, as I thought it was settled. It's persisted far too long though, longer than a persistent contrail



It's hard to imagine people would ignore outside influence, with how much evidence there is of people like Koch Bros, or Soros, or any other big business name---and their efforts of subversion by setting up NGOs for the simple & singular intent to change peoples opinions or their outlook on key issues.

I've noticed while researching this topic that multitudes of documents are removed from servers & its not 'chemtrail' servers, it's government & industry pages. Huge red flag.

There's also enough literature and lack of literature, that valid concerns should exist with the emissions of the airline industry no matter what. But then it's also understandable that people have concerns with the military. With a superficial look at it, I totally reject the notion that "a cover-up doesn't exist". Already mentioned, you can't prove a negative.



Second to that, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the military is actively engaged in weather modification as is (beyond the scope of what they admit to, and they already admit to a lot.) My greatest curiosity now resides in whether or not the 'chemtrail' movement, and the absurdity thats been injected in at some points, was simply to detract from active military roles.

If anything I fail to see the controversy in considering this topic seriously. In summary, the establishment admits contrails have geo-engineered the skies "accidentally", the military has plans to engineer clouds/weather with normal exhaust matter & there are other particulates which are also used in regular aviation...so

It's sad we live in a world where a conspiracy like this could happen. And we do. Our people are 1-brainwashed to accept every common explanation even when its contradicted by proof. 2-corporate interest has the ability to legally bribe politicians & influence by NGOs. 3-The power structures are so variable & the disparity within, allows efforts to be made which could never happen in an equal society 4-lastly information & secrecy. The security act of '47 was stripping away any & every bit of power the people have, as it legalizes lying to them, keeping the masses uninformed. All rights are undermined, every... single... one...---as any time someone can say, 'national security' & shut down anything.

So in my opinion its absolutely a worthy topic & to add, it would be better if people tried to prove it, rather than simply debunk debunk debunk. You can debunk anything.

There are scientific articles of the day purporting to prove artificial heavier than air flight impossible (via winged motor)

The military is usually quite a bit ahead of what it states publicly, so I can't see why it wouldn't be engaged in heavy weather modding already.





Carbon Black.








Also a little confused why they scrapped HAARP. It was a 250M project, only ran for x years when the military lit is saying they need more systems like it.

a reply to: boncho

No you can't...but you can debunk the junk science he tries to push as shown in the link provided.

This is not a new subject for many in this thread, and we know those who push bs and your source does just that.

It is the same with the WITWATS mockumentary and their misrepresenting of their so called proof that was debunked right here on ATS. Chemtrail pushers hope to capitalize on those who don't understand what they are pushing.

Why do you think real meteorologists don't come out and discuss chemtrails...because they understand the science behind contrails.

Here is a better wau to look at it...in over twenty years why has nobody ever tested a supposed chemtrail while it is still airborne?

Why are all supposed samples from either soil samples, or water samples...seems in all this time we would see at least one and yet we haven't..and that doesn't make you wonder why?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

It is the same with the WITWATS mockumentary and their misrepresenting of their so called proof that was debunked right here on ATS. Chemtrail pushers hope to capitalize on those who don't understand what they are pushing.

Like Mandela Effect, man has never been to space, the international space station is a hoax, all moon landings are a hoax, a hollow earth that connects the poles, US Navy fought space aliens in Antarctica, aliens stay away because we eat flesh, flat earth theory, alien moon bases, all UFOs are alien spaceships, Ufologists, WTC brought down by dustification.........

All proven true on YouTube? I think I see a pattern. Don't forget to like.....

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: boncho

Alrighty then I raise you this...

www.metabunk.org...

Jim Lee...aka rezn8d...has been debunked for many years.

Mothing more than pushing the same bs as always.

You can't debunk a person. You can debunk a website. If I use the same logic, your post is debunked because ATS has had plenty of hoaxes, and you are an ATS member....

Which is kinda the reason I came into the thread anyway. I was expecting intellectually honest people. I was pointing out the fact you can't 'prove a conspiracy doesn't exit'. You can't prove a negative. The study is a sham. It's intellectually dishonest.

Well thankfully that's not what the study set out to achieve

a reply to: boncho

In summary; you suspect somebody somewhere might be up to something. Is that about right?

a reply to: boncho

First off, I'll say its nice to have someone actually try to discuss this topic and bring new talking points and ideas. it's refreshing to say the least. So thanks.

On the HAARP angle, it's for communications. I believe the reason they scrapped it is they have a smaller, more efficient way of doing the same thing now. (likely classified) Kind of like why wee scrapped the Space Shuttle without having an alternative. (I think we do and it's also classified)

On the contrails on purpose angle, sure, we know plenty about them and can predict the altitude they will form at with decent weather forecasting, so all they need to do is fly in the right air to make more trails. No special chemicals needed, no nefarious plots needed, just fly at 32,465' on Tuesday from 4-7:45pm over Tulsa.

See, that's why it's impossible to do as you asked. Proving that there is some secret plot to spray white lines in the sky isn't a reality. Geo-engineering proposals are for things like SRM and what it should look like is nothing at all like contrails. There is a lot of information out there on this and I suggest reading what David Keith has put together, and perhaps watch some of his lectures on this. If you do that and genuinely try to learn and not pick small things out of context, you really do learn what he and others are trying to convey with regards to geo-engineering.

Now, cloud cover. Even man made. What does it accomplish? Well, if it's done in the morning, and thick enough, it can block the sun and significantly cool the area covered. If it's done late in the day after a hot sun has baked the ground for hours, it might hold in the heat of the day and make it a warm muggy night. So it can have alternate effects based on when it happens. But all effects are localized and only last as long as the could cover does.

So in conclusion, it's my firm belief that those white lines in the sky behind airplanes that look an awful lot like contrails are probably just contrails, and the fact that around this time of year only, they seem to stop forming for a few weeks while we endure the Dog Days of summer, kind of solidifies that fact, and only firms the position that the trails are based on weather, and not some mysterious chemical.

(And remember, you can always get a fuel sample, always.)

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You can debunk anything. Manned flight was debunked before it happened. So...

Simon Newcomb wrote:

"...The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be."

If you are investigating a phenomena, or issue, you don't go around 'debunking', its absurd.

Should I remind you of cigarette companies who promised their products were safe, who cranked out their own bogus studies?

In 1946, Brown and Williamson used baseball legend Babe Ruth to pitch Raleigh cigarettes, with the claim that “Medical science offers proof positive . . .No other leading cigarette is safer to smoke!” Ironically, Babe Ruth later died of throat cancer.

Or perhaps we should review the gas & oil industry that forecasted global warming and promptly buried it once realizing the negative market consequences. ....Lead in gasoline?

Hmmm....

Anymore?

You see, it's easy to debunk. If you were intellectually honest you'd set out to prove the hypothesis. I can think of 3-4 plausible ways it could be done, given the military or world leaders (elite) having access to forecast knowledge, which is now admitted contrails 'may' be causing "accidental" geo-engineering.

If they already forecasted this as a byproduct (in classified research) the elite (who are deeply intwined with MIC & Gov -see:HRC Emails, they could easily have facilitated market conditions that yielded (x) amount of traffic each year.

Then you have the fuels, whether its the additives which seem quite invisible on the regulatory side (and in reporting & literature) or if they ran campaigns with adjusted fuel at times (though the latter is far less likely - haven't ruled it out yet)

And lastly you have the military. Which could be engaged in wide spread operations and their literature suggests as much, as they are usually 20-30 years ahead of what they publicly admit. Of course proving this is nigh impossible as classified is classified. Which is why I specifically mentioned HAARP shutting down, as their own literature calls for increased systems and additional or larger arrays, seems contradictory at the very least.

Don't feel bad if you couldn't see this though, you've been programmed and socially conditioned to think the way you do. How about grabbing some coffee and we can debunk the caffeine out of it for a cup of decafe?

a reply to: neutronflux

Like Mandela Effect, man has never been to space, the international space station is a hoax, all moon landings are a hoax, a hollow earth that connects the poles, US Navy fought space aliens in Antarctica, aliens stay away because we eat flesh, flat earth theory, alien moon bases, all UFOs are alien spaceships, Ufologists, WTC brought down by dustification.........

All proven true on YouTube? I think I see a pattern. Don't forget to like.....

Right, totally ignoring Tavistock Initiatives, CIA & COINTELPRO, the more recent Snowden revelations, what appears to be a sock puppet malfunction on ATS re:Sandy Hook (Honestly I never questioned that but if its legit it almost makes me wonder 'why?'

What else? The CIA inventing the word "conspiracy theorist" to attack and deride JFK critics (even though a CIA historian admitted McCone & Dulles covered it up), the fact that Flat Earth forums had 10-20 members in YR-2000 but now its heavily promoted (e.g. its not organic, people are forced or conditioned to accept it - the reason it works is because as an allegory, it's true! Indeed, the world is flat, and people are too afraid to accept looking at the edge.)

Wait, let me guess, you thought it was normal Flat Earth videos have 500,000 views, and its all because of "idiot conspiracy tards", but has nothing to do with the cognitive dissonance, nor (CIA/NSA-linked)Google(CIA/NSA) YT Recommending those videos to everyone & anyone who searches for any conspiracy related topic - e.g.distraction +Tabloids picking up the story and disseminating them for the sole purpose to turn public opinion against conspiracy theorists.

You really thought it was organically driven? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah. Wooo. Heh. Man. Hmmm. Ehhhh. Erm....

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread....There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

**

– John Swinton, former New York Times Chief of Staff

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
– William Colby, former CIA director

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

– William Casey, CIA Director (from POTUS briefing, 1981)

“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”

– Harry S. Truman

The reasons conspiracies persist is because they have so much weight behind them. Social constructs do not persist in a vacuum. Feel free to prove us wrong by creating your own novel conspiracy based on false premise, when you reach a million views, rally dozens of people to your cause and websites form in the name of it, Ill humbly concede and profess my idiocy to the forums.

Technically, for a fair fight you'd have to go back to the 90s, during the origination of the topic. Much different crowd then, much different landscape. Oh well, you can just continue making appeals to absurdity to feign intelligence blocks...or something.

a reply to: boncho

Now who's using straw man arguments? That quote about manned flight not being possible was not a debunking. It was purely his opinion. An opinion that was wrongly founded, as is yours.

The claim that cigarettes were safe was either ignorant or callous, but was again not a debunking.

It appears you don't know what debunking is. It means removing bunk, or untruths. Neither of those examples does that in anyway. But congratulations on achieving another chemtrail standard, the deflection.

Several years ago I did set out to try and prove the hypothesis of chemtrails as I found it a curious proposition. I found that it was bollocks because the photographs put forward were not what they claimed to be. The properties ascribed to identifying chemtrails were utterly false and other evidence put forward was found to be misrepresented or misunderstood. At the end of my quest I found NO credible reason to believe in chemtrails due to every single piece of evidence being falsified in some way. That's what debunking means.

It's nothing to do with whether it's possible to spray from planes. Only a retard would argue from that position or pretend their opponent does.

It's just that the entire premise was false. There was, quite literally, nothing to see.

Here is a complete rundown of all the evidence that could not be debunked (in its correct sense, not your half-arsed interpretation above);























End.

Don't feel bad if you couldn't see this though, you've been programmed and socially conditioned to think the way you do. How about grabbing some coffee and we can debunk the caffeine out of it for a cup of decafe?

LOL. You don't half think your special don't you. Could you write ANYTHING more condescending and arrogant, and yet at the same time stupid, if you tried?

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: neutronflux

Like Mandela Effect, man has never been to space, the international space station is a hoax, all moon landings are a hoax, a hollow earth that connects the poles, US Navy fought space aliens in Antarctica, aliens stay away because we eat flesh, flat earth theory, alien moon bases, all UFOs are alien spaceships, Ufologists, WTC brought down by dustification.........

All proven true on YouTube? I think I see a pattern. Don't forget to like.....

Right, totally ignoring Tavistock Initiatives, CIA & COINTELPRO, the more recent Snowden revelations, what appears to be a sock puppet malfunction on ATS re:Sandy Hook (Honestly I never questioned that but if its legit it almost makes me wonder 'why?'

What else? The CIA inventing the word "conspiracy theorist" to attack and deride JFK critics (even though a CIA historian admitted McCone & Dulles covered it up), the fact that Flat Earth forums had 10-20 members in YR-2000 but now its heavily promoted (e.g. its not organic, people are forced or conditioned to accept it - the reason it works is because as an allegory, it's true! Indeed, the world is flat, and people are too afraid to accept looking at the edge.)

Wait, let me guess, you thought it was normal Flat Earth videos have 500,000 views, and its all because of "idiot conspiracy tards", but has nothing to do with the cognitive dissonance, nor (CIA/NSA-linked)Google(CIA/NSA) YT Recommending those videos to everyone & anyone who searches for any conspiracy related topic - e.g.distraction +Tabloids picking up the story and disseminating them for the sole purpose to turn public opinion against conspiracy theorists.

You really thought it was organically driven? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah. Wooo. Heh. Man. Hmmm. Ehhhh. Erm....

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread....There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

**

– John Swinton, former New York Times Chief of Staff

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
– William Colby, former CIA director

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

– William Casey, CIA Director (from POTUS briefing, 1981)

“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”

– Harry S. Truman

The reasons conspiracies persist is because they have so much weight behind them. Social constructs do not persist in a vacuum. Feel free to prove us wrong by creating your own novel conspiracy based on false premise, when you reach a million views, rally dozens of people to your cause and websites form in the name of it, Ill humbly concede and profess my idiocy to the forums.

Technically, for a fair fight you'd have to go back to the 90s, during the origination of the topic. Much different crowd then, much different landscape. Oh well, you can just continue making appeals to absurdity to feign intelligence blocks...or something.

None of which proves, or even APPROACHES the topic at hand. Is your tinfoil hat on too tight petal?

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: boncho

In summary; you suspect somebody somewhere might be up to something. Is that about right?

In summary, the only way to know for sure what the if there is something going on is: 1-having full access to classified material. Given that's not happening, or if one did they risk becoming an enemy of the state, we need to look at other options.

When I first noticed the topic (this one specifically, it bothered me because the media is spinning it falsely, using an illogical premise) I started looking for cloud cover histories, which don't exist (except very specific localities). A history of average or mean cloud cover could tell you right off the bat, a lot of info.

But, not really needed because they admit airplanes likely cause 'accidental' geo-engineering.

Most of the arguments against chemtrails are straw mans, and the argument itself, or whats used, is often straw man. Realizing the importance to the chemical Families (DuPont), gas families (probably the majority of them), including Koch bros (who are notorious for funding NGOs).....Im guessing that they have people working the subject to subvert it. If its as simple as presenting a false argument, a red herring, to sideline legitimate interest, or mock or discredit the concerned people involved.

Granted I don't know the scope of it, or if it even exists as yet (as I haven't had time to do research), but I can see easily how it could be achieved. **For there to be a conspiracy it requires is foreknowledge of the normal effects of airline industry, (& markets could've been manipulated to facilitate it) or military action, which would be obviously classified.. Otherwise, fuel additives are another possibility, or engine design even, though they are lower on my list of possibilities.

What I do know, is by going over the proponents & detractors on this subject, disinformation and subversion is apparent. I would bet a guarantee even. That's on intuition, but derived from ~20 years of study on the topic. It really comes down to "where there's smoke there's fire".

Though I concede that it could be as simply as keeping standard emission concerns & regulation off the backs of the industry (by creating a chemtrail straw man [a fake argument]) it would distract concerned citizens from the real problem which could easily be addressed if they were aware. At the very least, you have that. And even that alone is a conspiracy. A caveat to such a simple solution is the fact the military is heavily interested/involved, so

We allow Western nations to be controlled by legal bribery, and to have pressing human concerns entirely ignore, hidden or covered up in deep classification. The Security Act was the worst bit of legislation ever devised, it essentially robbed the people of every single constitutional right, maybe not in that moment, but as soon as they are subverted at a later point (or even the potentiality that they can be), then the realization is acknowledged--that during the time since it manifested, no one has had any of their rights, since they could be superseded so easily.

To think that because it's been said, by a heavily influenced and controlled body, that there is no fire from the smoking bush, that just makes people willfully ignorant. You don't need to believe anything, but without the removal of the secrecy act, no one can be quite sure of any conspiracy or effort to undermine the legal boundaries which were meant (or intended)....(or at least implied) to protect regular people.

a reply to: boncho

you are kind of digging into this farther than the conspiracy goes. Here is a brief recap of why we are all here. (the debunkers)
It all started with this:


now anyone with any sense knows that you can't just look at that and make the determination that one is filled with chemicals and the other is harmless water ice. But the entire chemtrail movement is based on just that. When we rail against idiocy, that is the idiocy that we mean. It finally got to the point that cloud seeding and geo-engineering had to be brought in to legitimize any aspect of the conspiracy. Now, you seem to be quite sure the conspiracy is being kept alive by TPTB. My theory is the driving forces behind all of it are the few charlatans who promote this theory and base their livelihood on it.

The site you linked at first, geoengineeringwatch.org. It's run by a tool named Dane Wiggington. He fuels his habits and pays his bills with money bilked from believers. He no longer has "a real job". He does chemtrails full time. Same with Clifford Carnicon. He's the mogelions guy. these people cannot afford for the conspiracy to be realized for what it is. They teach/brainwash their cult members into believing anything they say and also teach them that anyone who disagrees with them is a shill, paid by the government at Langley, and they are not under any circumstances allowed to have conversation with anyone who isn't a believer.

If it all falls into the "follow the money" box, then the money leads to those few who profit from this conspiracy. The airlines could care less about what nutters think. They have the EPA keeping a watch on them.

Our stance has and will continue to be, those white lines in the sky that look like contrails, are likely contrails. Anything else needs to be investigated and tested.