It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

page: 18
19
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I didn't post it, but other members have already done what you asked. You just ignored EVERYTHING that's been posted.

But since you've said there are chemtrails, I'm asking you to prove it. If you can't, just admit it.
edit on 1862017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




The blind followers have no doubt, no questions, about their government, its agencies. Only those who doubt their government, it's agencies, deserve to be scorned, as liars, as fools, as nut-jobs... This bizarre-land holds their government as 'god', honorable, to all citizens. The contrail claim is pure nonsense. Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL. This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it. Of course, you won't dispute it. No, you try to change it. Somehow, there are current jet engines which produce contrails, all the time, in any atmospheric conditions!! I'm sure...




Its a chemtrail thread, everything you post points to the fact that you have lost the plot.

I am pretty sure you have already done it in this thread but for good measure can you simply bring up 9/11 like many others do when they are arguing chemtrails, they have to bring up 9/11 and how the government cant be trusted.

But its usually brought up as a last resort when the chemtrail believer has no foot to stand on they try to imply the person they arguing with is a 9/11 OS supporter which really helps their argument about chemtrails existing.







Massive levels of aluminum, barium, etc. in soil samples, and rainwater samples. It's excused away as industrial pollution, and so on.


Its not excused away, without actually seriously investigating why in a certain area there might be a higher concentration of certain metals and what not in the soil and water simply rational thinking would suggest that increase would come from a source near by or at least one would begin to look top sources close to home so to speak.

Yet it makes me wonder how much damage ones brain must be or to how much one must lack critical thinking to think it comes from a source further away and has to travel through a medium that is so fluid and ever changing that its actually mind boggling someone could thing something could be sprayed 10km up in the air and it would fall straight down. The big thing one must focus on is its being sprayed, if it was a bowling ball then yes I could see how one would think it might fall straight down but a fine mist being sprayed, even if it is so called aluminum or Barium, its still being sprayed as a mist that looks like a trail out the back of the engines of a plane. How that falls straight down in people minds scares me.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

FFS, who cares about those 2 planes?

For the thousandth time, post some evidence of "chem" trails.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


I've asked you to show me the actual flight data of these two flights, and I've yet to see it.

I've also asked you about when each plane departed, and I've yet to see it.

When you said the planes were about 12 miles away from him, you would've assumed the planes were some distance away from the city. Obviously, you did not realize the planes were flying over Richmond, likely directly over YVR itself!

This is supposed to be your own evidence. You went to the trouble of looking for any commercial flights from 2014, on that day, at that time. You came up with two flights that supposedly matched up perfectly. You claim the flights were found on 'Planefinder', using flight tracker software playback. You also referred to Skytracker.

You must have spent a fair amount of time and effort in this.

That's why I asked you for the actual data of these two flights, which will either prove, or disprove, your argument.

Why are you unable to show the actual data, to support your claim?




Why is this so hard for you to follow? It only took me about 15 minutes to match up the flights in the original post. It took me 10 minutes to work the flight back from Vancouver and find them when they first registered coming out of their respective airports.

Delta 275 Boeing 777 is flying from Detroit to Taipei, Taiwan via Tokyo, Japan.

1810 GMT



Delta 295 Boeing 747 is flying from Atlanta to Shanghai, China via Tokyo, Japan.

1846 GMT

Planefinder Link

You are also failing to understand how some chemtrailers completely misinterpret distance. Go back and watch the video and see how the chemtrailer believes that the two aircraft are directly over Vancouver. He even draws a map showing where he believes the two aircraft flew over. It is classic misjudging of distance and is exhibited time and time again by chemtrailers in their videos. The two aircraft were actually about 12 miles away but he perceived them to be within close proximity to his filming location.

See following guide on how to use Planefinder playback facility.


Making the most of Plane Finder playback You can access planefinder.net‘s playback feature by selecting the “Playback” button at the top right-hand side of our website. After that it’s as simple as selecting a date and time and hitting play. Playback works just like a video player – allowing you to pause and adjust playback speed at any time you’d like.


Making the most of planefinder playback

edit on 18/6/2017 by tommyjo because: additional info added



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.


Actually, I didn't. Get off your high horse for once.

Where's your evidence of chemtrails? You must have some if you think they're real. Or are you one of these blind followers who worship the chemtrails pushers and anything they say?


The blind followers have no doubt, no questions, about their government, its agencies. Only those who doubt their government, it's agencies, deserve to be scorned, as liars, as fools, as nut-jobs...

This bizarre-land holds their government as 'god', honorable, to all citizens.

The contrail claim is pure nonsense.

Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.

This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it.

Of course, you won't dispute it.

No, you try to change it.

Somehow, there are current jet engines which produce contrails, all the time, in any atmospheric conditions!!

I'm sure...


For every ton of jet fuel burned, 1.25 tons of water is produced. Normal atmospheric conditions around 30,000 ft includes a constant temperature of around minus 40 degrees, with pressure and humidity variable.

Right. So, according to you it is a scientific fact that if water is released into the atmosphere at temperatures of around minus 40 degrees it will not, cannot, freeze.

As long as we can understand the level of stupid we are dealing with here......

I also posted some links that utterly disprove several claims/assumptions you made. I see that, as expected, you completely ignore them.

Inconvenient, isn't it, when people can prove you wrong without hardly trying.

I know we aren't changing your mind. I'm pretty sure you are too far gone to help at all, as your off-topic rambling about "trusting governments" proved.
edit on 18-6-2017 by waynos because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2017 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

At that point, I realized this guy is a troll. Nobody is dense enough to think like that for real. Nobody.
Contrail can't exist, so every line in they sky since powered flight, has been a barium/aluminum chemtrail put out by "them". All of them. Every last one. Not just a few, but all of them. the whole lot, the big enchilada, the whole basket full, the full monte.

But hopefully, the attention requirement has been met.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.


explain clouds ?

explain the condensation from your breath on a freezing day ?

explain mist and fog ?

FFS - become scientifically literate



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The contrail claim is pure nonsense.

Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.

This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it.


Wait...how can you say it is a "scientific fact" that contrails cannot form under normal conditions? That's utterly wrong.

You need to be careful what information you are learning, because whoever told you that certainly told you some disinformation (possibly in order to further their own chemtrail agenda).

Put it this way: There is always water vapor in the air, but water vapor (water in its gaseous form) is invisible. So even on a blue-sky day, the air contains a certain amount of invisible water vapor. Clouds form because the right conditions exist (albeit, still "normal" conditions) for the invisible water vapor in the air to condense out of that air and form liquid water droplets and/or frozen ice crystals -- and those visible drops of liquid water and/or visible water-ice crystals are what we see when we see a cloud.

These liquid water droplets and ice crystals are what you can see in a visible cloud. They form because of relative humidity and changes in temperature can cause some vapor to condense into water droplets or ice crystals, and those droplets and crystals act as a nucleation point for more of the invisible vapor to condense into water droplets or ice crystals, causing a chain reaction that forms a visible cloud. Sometimes dust or other fine particulates could act as nucleation points in the air, aiding ion the formation of visible clouds out of the invisible (but ever-present) water vapor in the air.


Contrails are the some thing. They are often called artificial clouds because they form the same way clouds do -- specifically the plane flying through the atmosphere creates conditions by which invisible water vapor in the atmosphere condenses into visible water-ice crystals.

These conditions are due to the wet exhaust being ejected out of the back of the engine (with much of that water in the wet exhaust already being present in there air before the engine's intake sucked it in, but some of that water being a by-product of the burning of jet fuel) acts as nucleation points onto which the invisible water vapor in the air can condense out of the air and freeze are a visible ice crystal -- creating a contrail that is extremely similar to a cirrus cloud, which is also made of ice crystals.


So from whomever it was that you heard "Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.", they were very wrong and very misinformed.

They may as well be saying: "Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CLOUD.", and we know that is not correct at all.


edit on 2017/6/19 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: turbonium1


I've asked you to show me the actual flight data of these two flights, and I've yet to see it.

I've also asked you about when each plane departed, and I've yet to see it.

When you said the planes were about 12 miles away from him, you would've assumed the planes were some distance away from the city. Obviously, you did not realize the planes were flying over Richmond, likely directly over YVR itself!

This is supposed to be your own evidence. You went to the trouble of looking for any commercial flights from 2014, on that day, at that time. You came up with two flights that supposedly matched up perfectly. You claim the flights were found on 'Planefinder', using flight tracker software playback. You also referred to Skytracker.

You must have spent a fair amount of time and effort in this.

That's why I asked you for the actual data of these two flights, which will either prove, or disprove, your argument.

Why are you unable to show the actual data, to support your claim?




Why is this so hard for you to follow? It only took me about 15 minutes to match up the flights in the original post. It took me 10 minutes to work the flight back from Vancouver and find them when they first registered coming out of their respective airports.

Delta 275 Boeing 777 is flying from Detroit to Taipei, Taiwan via Tokyo, Japan.

1810 GMT



Delta 295 Boeing 747 is flying from Atlanta to Shanghai, China via Tokyo, Japan.

1846 GMT

Planefinder Link

You are also failing to understand how some chemtrailers completely misinterpret distance. Go back and watch the video and see how the chemtrailer believes that the two aircraft are directly over Vancouver. He even draws a map showing where he believes the two aircraft flew over. It is classic misjudging of distance and is exhibited time and time again by chemtrailers in their videos. The two aircraft were actually about 12 miles away but he perceived them to be within close proximity to his filming location.

See following guide on how to use Planefinder playback facility.


Making the most of Plane Finder playback You can access planefinder.net‘s playback feature by selecting the “Playback” button at the top right-hand side of our website. After that it’s as simple as selecting a date and time and hitting play. Playback works just like a video player – allowing you to pause and adjust playback speed at any time you’d like.


Making the most of planefinder playback


You still don't understand the problem, or likely you do, and hope any sort of excuse will wash.

We require the actual data of these two flights, obviously.

To "playback" a flight is not proving anything, unless it presents the actual data, of the specific flight.

Maybe the actual data will show you are correct, or maybe not.


This might be the ideal opportunity to settle this argument, no?

Is the actual data available, and if so, where do we find it?

There is an archive of those flights, but only by purchase... so it seems.How much it actually costs, I have no idea.

Who wants to see old data, so bad, he would dole out money for it??

Especially when all the same data was available for FREE, only 2-3 years ago??!!

But the data is, indeed, available.


Should the data be revealed, then I will accept it, whatever it shows.

If so, will YOU accept it, no matter what it shows, likewise?


I accept the truth... do you?



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Your 'software' cannot run these simulations of past flights without having some actual data, obviously.

This doesn't mean they have accurate data of those specific flights, and if they do, nothing said on it....right? ?
Refer to the actual flight of those two planes, on record. This proves exactly where the planes flew, from start to finish.

They don't know time of departure, but know the specific time when flying 12-16 miles south of Vancouver?

Or they DO know their departure times, which means you cannot admit to the truth.

Is the departure time known, of each flight? Yes, or no?

Thanks...



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.


Actually, I didn't. Get off your high horse for once.

Where's your evidence of chemtrails? You must have some if you think they're real. Or are you one of these blind followers who worship the chemtrails pushers and anything they say?


The blind followers have no doubt, no questions, about their government, its agencies. Only those who doubt their government, it's agencies, deserve to be scorned, as liars, as fools, as nut-jobs...

This bizarre-land holds their government as 'god', honorable, to all citizens.

The contrail claim is pure nonsense.

Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.

This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it.

Of course, you won't dispute it.

No, you try to change it.

Somehow, there are current jet engines which produce contrails, all the time, in any atmospheric conditions!!

I'm sure...


For every ton of jet fuel burned, 1.25 tons of water is produced. Normal atmospheric conditions around 30,000 ft includes a constant temperature of around minus 40 degrees, with pressure and humidity variable.

Right. So, according to you it is a scientific fact that if water is released into the atmosphere at temperatures of around minus 40 degrees it will not, cannot, freeze.

As long as we can understand the level of stupid we are dealing with here......

I also posted some links that utterly disprove several claims/assumptions you made. I see that, as expected, you completely ignore them.

Inconvenient, isn't it, when people can prove you wrong without hardly trying.

I know we aren't changing your mind. I'm pretty sure you are too far gone to help at all, as your off-topic rambling about "trusting governments" proved.


The opinions of others are nothing to cause anger, or personal attacks.

Nobody is 'stupid' for having a specific viewpoint.

What is the reaction we have to anyone we believe is 'stupid' for a viewpoint? Nothing. It is his own view, which we think is silly, or foolish, and that's it. We don't give a s^&% what he thinks, and why would it?

Who cares about the rantings of anyone?



Why get peeved about my take on the issue?
When you don't want to believe something so terrible could really be true, while in fear of the genuine evidence for it, at the same time.

An emotional response is almost saying 'why have you shown me the ugly truth of it?'


What you have to realize about this issue is that we all want the same thing. We do not want any trails that are harmful to us, to our families, to our friends. If we find these trails are meant to harm us, then we can all work together, to destroy those who sought to harm us so.

The opposite is trails are all normal, and not harmful to us, or at least the trails are not meant to harm us....


This is why I want to know if a trail is meant for harm, or not at all.


Look at your government.

What have they ever done for our betterment?

Nothing apparent they've done for the sole benefit of common folk.


What have they done to harm the people?

Centuries of creating wars by any excuse, is nothing but mass murder, on a grand scale.

All wars were fought for our fine leaders, who said the wars were for all of us, except for millions of us that died so everyone else could live in freedom, and everyone believes wars are always being fought to protect our 'freedoms'.


Everyone we fight in wars have wanted to take away our 'freedoms'.

This is why we fight our wars in their own countries, to protect our own 'freedoms' by overtaking and occupying the other countries!



posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: turbonium1




The blind followers have no doubt, no questions, about their government, its agencies. Only those who doubt their government, it's agencies, deserve to be scorned, as liars, as fools, as nut-jobs... This bizarre-land holds their government as 'god', honorable, to all citizens. The contrail claim is pure nonsense. Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL. This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it. Of course, you won't dispute it. No, you try to change it. Somehow, there are current jet engines which produce contrails, all the time, in any atmospheric conditions!! I'm sure...




Its a chemtrail thread, everything you post points to the fact that you have lost the plot.

I am pretty sure you have already done it in this thread but for good measure can you simply bring up 9/11 like many others do when they are arguing chemtrails, they have to bring up 9/11 and how the government cant be trusted.

But its usually brought up as a last resort when the chemtrail believer has no foot to stand on they try to imply the person they arguing with is a 9/11 OS supporter which really helps their argument about chemtrails existing.







Massive levels of aluminum, barium, etc. in soil samples, and rainwater samples. It's excused away as industrial pollution, and so on.


Its not excused away, without actually seriously investigating why in a certain area there might be a higher concentration of certain metals and what not in the soil and water simply rational thinking would suggest that increase would come from a source near by or at least one would begin to look top sources close to home so to speak.

Yet it makes me wonder how much damage ones brain must be or to how much one must lack critical thinking to think it comes from a source further away and has to travel through a medium that is so fluid and ever changing that its actually mind boggling someone could thing something could be sprayed 10km up in the air and it would fall straight down. The big thing one must focus on is its being sprayed, if it was a bowling ball then yes I could see how one would think it might fall straight down but a fine mist being sprayed, even if it is so called aluminum or Barium, its still being sprayed as a mist that looks like a trail out the back of the engines of a plane. How that falls straight down in people minds scares me.



They are metals, in a very fine particulate form.

Metals in fine particles are exactly what makes them extremely harmful to all of us.

Nobody sees those particles, yet they are breathing them, yet they are ingesting metals within their food, and water.


Asbestos was not known to be deadly, at first. Breathing the particles killed many people, who didn't know particles were so lethal.

Same as metal in particle form are lethal.



The subtlety of it makes you think nothing could be harmful to us.


Not when it happens every day, for many years, however.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1
YOU cited the video with two planes, being YOUR evidence, so that's what YOU need to prove...

YOU claimed the planes were miles away from Vancouver, and YOU claimed to have found two specific commercial flights which matched up perfectly.

So YOU want to pretend like it never existed, because YOU cannot actually support it...


Deal with the reality.


Actually, I didn't. Get off your high horse for once.

Where's your evidence of chemtrails? You must have some if you think they're real. Or are you one of these blind followers who worship the chemtrails pushers and anything they say?


The blind followers have no doubt, no questions, about their government, its agencies. Only those who doubt their government, it's agencies, deserve to be scorned, as liars, as fools, as nut-jobs...

This bizarre-land holds their government as 'god', honorable, to all citizens.

The contrail claim is pure nonsense.

Normal atmospheric conditions CANNOT FORM A CONTRAIL.

This is a scientific fact. Nobody can dispute it.

Of course, you won't dispute it.

No, you try to change it.

Somehow, there are current jet engines which produce contrails, all the time, in any atmospheric conditions!!

I'm sure...


For every ton of jet fuel burned, 1.25 tons of water is produced. Normal atmospheric conditions around 30,000 ft includes a constant temperature of around minus 40 degrees, with pressure and humidity variable.

Right. So, according to you it is a scientific fact that if water is released into the atmosphere at temperatures of around minus 40 degrees it will not, cannot, freeze.

As long as we can understand the level of stupid we are dealing with here......

I also posted some links that utterly disprove several claims/assumptions you made. I see that, as expected, you completely ignore them.

Inconvenient, isn't it, when people can prove you wrong without hardly trying.

I know we aren't changing your mind. I'm pretty sure you are too far gone to help at all, as your off-topic rambling about "trusting governments" proved.


The opinions of others are nothing to cause anger, or personal attacks.

Nobody is 'stupid' for having a specific viewpoint.

What is the reaction we have to anyone we believe is 'stupid' for a viewpoint? Nothing. It is his own view, which we think is silly, or foolish, and that's it. We don't give a s^&% what he thinks, and why would it?

Who cares about the rantings of anyone?



Why get peeved about my take on the issue?
When you don't want to believe something so terrible could really be true, while in fear of the genuine evidence for it, at the same time.

An emotional response is almost saying 'why have you shown me the ugly truth of it?'


What you have to realize about this issue is that we all want the same thing. We do not want any trails that are harmful to us, to our families, to our friends. If we find these trails are meant to harm us, then we can all work together, to destroy those who sought to harm us so.

The opposite is trails are all normal, and not harmful to us, or at least the trails are not meant to harm us....


This is why I want to know if a trail is meant for harm, or not at all.


Look at your government.

What have they ever done for our betterment?

Nothing apparent they've done for the sole benefit of common folk.


What have they done to harm the people?

Centuries of creating wars by any excuse, is nothing but mass murder, on a grand scale.

All wars were fought for our fine leaders, who said the wars were for all of us, except for millions of us that died so everyone else could live in freedom, and everyone believes wars are always being fought to protect our 'freedoms'.


Everyone we fight in wars have wanted to take away our 'freedoms'.

This is why we fight our wars in their own countries, to protect our own 'freedoms' by overtaking and occupying the other countries!



I was more amused, than peeved.

Yes, a specific viewpoint IS stupid, if that view flies in the face of known and provable fact. Your inability to accept that water vapour will freeze and leave contrails in the lower stratosphere is as stupid as it is wrong. Please feel free to try and explain why water will not freeze at temperatures of 30-40 below zero? I'm sure it'll be fascinating. LOL

Again, you ramble on about corrupt governments riding roughshod over the general population as if it's (a) news, or (b) in any way relevant to whether contrails form or not.

I'm sorry that you can't see the silliness of it, but your viewpoint, at least the way you present it, is hilariously stupid, INCLUDING your incredibly arrogant and asinine belief that those of us who disagree with you are somehow scared to dare think our governments would do us harm.

You are not privy to some special insight, you are as wrong as you could possibly be,but I'm not in this thread to tell you about my own history over the last thirty years. Look at my profile, I've been an active member of this site for 13 years. Not that that proves anything other than the downright insulting silliness of the assumption mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I've done the research. There is no active chemtrail programme. There are proposals that have not progressed, there have been small scale experiments that have been analysed but even then, most proposed experiments never actually happened (but they still get posted on here as current by idiots who grab headlines without studying content).

NONE of the geoengineering programmes feature anything that looks like contrails from airliners.

NONE of the past experiments or then-secret spraying operations by US or U.K. militaries featured spraying contrails out of high flying aircraft.

Such experiments that did involve aerial spraying did not leave visible contrails AT ALL and were found in review to be inefficient, with better results obtained from ground-based release mechanisms.

The ONLY EVER link between contrails from high flying aircraft and spraying/geoengineering originates from scam websites and you tube channels, in content written by people with no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of aviation or meteorology, or in the worst cases BOTH. These websites also frequently offer for sale various "anti-chemtrail" products. Cases in point being geoengineeringweb, Rense, Tankerenemy, Dane Wigington, etc etc. All sources completely lacking any credibility whatsoever and can easily be DEMONSTRATED to be outright lying with each new item they produce.

Against this, contrails are known, understood, forecastable, and observed to behave in exactly the way physics would expect a trail of frozen water to behave.

In any court on earth the case for chemtrails outdoor not be merely dismissed, it would be laughed out.

Now. If you have anything that can contradict that, which is not merely your supposition of what you think might happen, or how you think I think (which is irrelevant to your argument either way) then please present it.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You claim that you'll admit you are wrong if shown to be. How about the fact that in two posts now you have failed to acknowledge that I have proven two or three claims of yours to be wrong? How about adressing that to allow the discussion to move on.

If you don't remember, go back and read the posts.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1






They are metals, in a very fine particulate form. Metals in fine particles are exactly what makes them extremely harmful to all of us. Nobody sees those particles, yet they are breathing them, yet they are ingesting metals within their food, and water. Asbestos was not known to be deadly, at first. Breathing the particles killed many people, who didn't know particles were so lethal. Same as metal in particle form are lethal. The subtlety of it makes you think nothing could be harmful to us. Not when it happens every day, for many years, however.






Good luck and get well soon

metal in particle form is lethal?

seriously, how many metals have you ingested to lead to such ignorance?

or this all a joke and you are just having a laugh?



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos


The ONLY EVER link between contrails from high flying aircraft and spraying/geoengineering originates from scam websites and you tube channels, in content written by people with no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of aviation or meteorology, or in the worst cases BOTH. These websites also frequently offer for sale various "anti-chemtrail" products. Cases in point being geoengineeringweb, Rense, Tankerenemy, Dane Wigington, etc etc. All sources completely lacking any credibility whatsoever and can easily be DEMONSTRATED to be outright lying with each new item they produce.

Against this, contrails are known, understood, forecastable, and observed to behave in exactly the way physics would expect a trail of frozen water to behave.

In any court on earth the case for chemtrails outdoor not be merely dismissed, it would be laughed out.

Now. If you have anything that can contradict that, which is not merely your supposition of what you think might happen, or how you think I think (which is irrelevant to your argument either way) then please present it.


You have no proof, that's the problem here.

It is your claim that the planes are normal commercial flights, and they leave normal contrails, nothing else.

YOU have to prove that claim, first of all. No proof of your claim, so your argument fails.

You've avoided the problem over and over again. Nothing works.

This video was YOUR example, to prove YOUR claim.

After I showed the video helped my case, not yours, you've acted like it never even existed.

You won't even admit that the two planes were over Richmond, right?

Acting like it's proven already? Same act used in defending the moon-landings, the 9/11 fable, etc.


You can't prove these two planes were commercial flights, from your video, so you avoid it...


edit on 30-6-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Such knowledge you have, simply magnificent, god-like!!

The scientific explanation of a contrail was not disputed, or revamped, for many decades.

No change at all, right?


They always explained how contrails form only when specific conditions exist.

In fact, they said a contrail is POSSIBLE when those conditions exist, whether or not contrails WILL form are uncertain.


After they pointed out how contrails are not found in normal atmospheric conditions, the environment isn't relevant, and that's how contrails now magically form all the time, day after day, all year, everywhere, around the world!


Once they bleated about how contrails form in virtually ANY environment, it was not a problem anymore!

All good, now...


Mindless.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: turbonium1

You claim that you'll admit you are wrong if shown to be. How about the fact that in two posts now you have failed to acknowledge that I have proven two or three claims of yours to be wrong? How about adressing that to allow the discussion to move on.

If you don't remember, go back and read the posts.


I've admitted that I was wrong about something, which was that some planes fly nearby the Canadian border, during flights.

I have no problem with admitting to any mistakes, errors. WHY CAN'T EVEN ONE OF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO SIMPLY ADMIT TO A MISTAKE??

As an example, your side estimated the planes were 12 miles away from his position. Which is directly over Richmond, YVR.

Your side knows this, but cannot admit anything.

To find someone who refuses to ever admit to any of their own mistakes, just look in a mirror.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 06:23 AM
link   
This whole argument is very silly. With anything if you make a claim you need to show proof of it. For example if you claim thereally is a Chem trail then show that the plane isn't a passenger plane. Show this is a special plane. Or get a pilot to take air samples and have them tested. Without any evidence all we are looking at is atmospheric condensation



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
This whole argument is very silly. With anything if you make a claim you need to show proof of it. For example if you claim thereally is a Chem trail then show that the plane isn't a passenger plane. Show this is a special plane. Or get a pilot to take air samples and have them tested. Without any evidence all we are looking at is atmospheric condensation


The first claim was that the planes in the video were commercial flights. That claim has no proof, however.

This claim has to be proven, but if not, the claim fails. So that's how it stands.

No contrails here.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join