Coal ash the new chemtrail additive...or so this says.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

chem·trail ˈkemˌtrāl/Submit noun a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

Sounds like a real thing to me.

Perhaps you are referring to the belief that it is also considered by some to be a covert operation to release biological agents into the atmosphere.

Chemtrails are very much real.

Where did you get that definition ?

Contrails

nounNorth American
noun: contrail; plural noun: contrails
a trail of condensed water from an aircraft or rocket at high altitude, seen as a white streak against the sky.

Now , you were saying ?

Defs by Google and others.

Funny stuff.

I gave the definition for chemtrail and you give the definition of contrail.

two different definitions.

Because there are no chemtrails
And , you did not post the source of the definition
I did.
Ashamed ?

Chemtrail by definition is the same as car exhaust and con trail is the water vapor that is attracted to chemtrails or exhaust by way of temperature.

You think that car exhaust consists of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Please show your work!

From the definition you posted on page 1

a reply to: howtonhawky

Apparently you do not comprehend definitions very well.

OH i comprehend them very well, but when a chemtrail is claimed I know its bs, but please enlighten me with your knowledge as I have been here long enough to know when someone tries to blow smoke up my rear.

a reply to: shanecoreyhartley

You ever hear of semantics?

WOw some of you folks should truly pay attention as I am not saying chemtrails are real as I know they aren't. but hey read into what you will as it just shows people only comprehend what they want instead of what is being said.

a reply to: shanecoreyhartley

double post

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Right here on A T S.... Seven years ago......satellite images of offshore ....let the wind take it in......spraying In Britain ...on an ATS thread.....N E of London about 90 miles at 4:30 am.....then west off the coast of Oregon....140 miles

so you have proof that was chemtrails because just saying it doesn't constitute proof...well to chemtards it does.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Did ya get that part......here at friggin ATS!

Again just saying it was chemtrailing is not proof but as usual it is to chemtards such as yourself. tell you what show me where samples were taken of those that concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt they were chemtrails...care to do that or would you just rather say they were and not back it up with evidence...and i guarantee that thread didn't do it either.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Goin in tight circles

so that is your proof going in circles...holding patterns are known and as I thought you were some aviation man you should know that or do you just conveniently forget that. Well then I guess because of your immense knowledge of seeing a plkane go in circles that is absolute proof...except it isn't, but thanks for showing your foolishness.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Funny stuff.

yes it was watching you cling to a fallacy. one exists in aviation the other is a word used by chemtards who know no better.

Wow

You peeps grasp at many straws and ignore verifiable facts.

If you can not admit that the definition of chemtrail consist of two different parts one covering pollutants in exhaust and the other part covering covert operations to add pollutants into exhaust then that is your personal problem and i hear a fence post calling your names to join in your arguments.

a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

The answer is actually quite simple. To the jet fuel of (commercial) airliners several chemicals are in many cases, if not all, added to improve the ignition of the fuel because at high altitudes flame-out occurs in the jet engines when no additives are added. To overcome this, chemicals such as trimethyl aluminum (TMA) are added to the jet fuel.

In the case of the New Jersey Department of Health they also state that “trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to cause cancer in animals.” About trimethyl aluminum’s ability to cause cancer in humans nothing specific is stated, thus suggesting that according to this department of health no tests have been conducted or the results of such tests have not been published yet. The document is a in 2000 revised publication of the 1986 original. the document contiues: “Trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to affect reproduction … trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for other chronic (long-term) health effects.” The UCLA document states that trimethylaluminum (TMA) “decomposes into irritating dust that may cause liver and kidney damage … Residual dusts have been implicated in kidney and liver damage in laboratory animals.”

It appears Trimethy aluminum is added to jet fuel and is part of the vapor/chemical trail, but it also appears this is not a conspiracy, just irresponsible use of chemicals as per usual.

truthnewsinternational.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

The answer is actually quite simple. To the jet fuel of (commercial) airliners several chemicals are in many cases, if not all, added to improve the ignition of the fuel because at high altitudes flame-out occurs in the jet engines when no additives are added. To overcome this, chemicals such as trimethyl aluminum (TMA) are added to the jet fuel.

In the case of the New Jersey Department of Health they also state that “trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to cause cancer in animals.” About trimethyl aluminum’s ability to cause cancer in humans nothing specific is stated, thus suggesting that according to this department of health no tests have been conducted or the results of such tests have not been published yet. The document is a in 2000 revised publication of the 1986 original. the document contiues: “Trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to affect reproduction … trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for other chronic (long-term) health effects.” The UCLA document states that trimethylaluminum (TMA) “decomposes into irritating dust that may cause liver and kidney damage … Residual dusts have been implicated in kidney and liver damage in laboratory animals.”

It appears Trimethy aluminum is added to jet fuel and is part of the vapor/chemical trail, but it also appears this is not a conspiracy, just irresponsible use of chemicals as per usual.

truthnewsinternational.wordpress.com...

Any evidence that TMA is added to jet fuel? It is very dangerous stuff

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

The answer is actually quite simple. To the jet fuel of (commercial) airliners several chemicals are in many cases, if not all, added to improve the ignition of the fuel because at high altitudes flame-out occurs in the jet engines when no additives are added. To overcome this, chemicals such as trimethyl aluminum (TMA) are added to the jet fuel.

In the case of the New Jersey Department of Health they also state that “trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to cause cancer in animals.” About trimethyl aluminum’s ability to cause cancer in humans nothing specific is stated, thus suggesting that according to this department of health no tests have been conducted or the results of such tests have not been published yet. The document is a in 2000 revised publication of the 1986 original. the document contiues: “Trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to affect reproduction … trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for other chronic (long-term) health effects.” The UCLA document states that trimethylaluminum (TMA) “decomposes into irritating dust that may cause liver and kidney damage … Residual dusts have been implicated in kidney and liver damage in laboratory animals.”

It appears Trimethy aluminum is added to jet fuel and is part of the vapor/chemical trail, but it also appears this is not a conspiracy, just irresponsible use of chemicals as per usual.

truthnewsinternational.wordpress.com...

Any evidence that TMA is added to jet fuel? It is very dangerous stuff

Greenpeace claims it is.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

The answer is actually quite simple. To the jet fuel of (commercial) airliners several chemicals are in many cases, if not all, added to improve the ignition of the fuel because at high altitudes flame-out occurs in the jet engines when no additives are added. To overcome this, chemicals such as trimethyl aluminum (TMA) are added to the jet fuel.

In the case of the New Jersey Department of Health they also state that “trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to cause cancer in animals.” About trimethyl aluminum’s ability to cause cancer in humans nothing specific is stated, thus suggesting that according to this department of health no tests have been conducted or the results of such tests have not been published yet. The document is a in 2000 revised publication of the 1986 original. the document contiues: “Trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for its ability to affect reproduction … trimethyl aluminum has not been tested for other chronic (long-term) health effects.” The UCLA document states that trimethylaluminum (TMA) “decomposes into irritating dust that may cause liver and kidney damage … Residual dusts have been implicated in kidney and liver damage in laboratory animals.”

It appears Trimethy aluminum is added to jet fuel and is part of the vapor/chemical trail, but it also appears this is not a conspiracy, just irresponsible use of chemicals as per usual.

truthnewsinternational.wordpress.com...

Any evidence that TMA is added to jet fuel? It is very dangerous stuff

Greenpeace claims it is.

Is that why your article included this image?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

Pointless semantics really move the discussion along don't they

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

Pointless semantics really move the discussion along don't they

You missed the point.

If i say that chemtrails do not exist then i would be full of crap.

If i say people are not adding chemicals into the exhaust of planes then i am making a valid point.

This little gem comes up in just about every thread the poster makes and has derailed many conversations on the topic.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: howtonhawky

www.nasa.gov...
This is a real chemtrail. It's the only example I know of other than calling everything that emits water vapor a "chem trail" since H2O is a chemical. But in reality, what the folks who argue for this call "chemtrails" are contrails that persist.

If they ever wanted to know the truth, they would test them in air. They don't, too much money to be made from speeches and selling fear to the ignorant. Does Dane Wiggington have a real job? if not, how does he pay for his large Mt. Shasta estate? inquiring minds don't GAF.

Everything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Now perhaps instead of spending so much time arguing over the subtle details people could just say contrived trails or something to denote the covert operations they do or do not believe.


Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

Pointless semantics really move the discussion along don't they

You missed the point.

If i say that chemtrails do not exist then i would be full of crap.

If i say people are not adding chemicals into the exhaust of planes then i am making a valid point.

This little gem comes up in just about every thread the poster makes and has derailed many conversations on the topic.

Pretty sure most chemtrail believers and debunkers know what people mean when they say chemtrails

a reply to: howtonhawky

Apparently you do not comprehend definitions very well. The definition is there in the post or you could look it up for yourself.

what do definitions of words have anything to do if they exist.



We have definitions for many words that are used to describe fictional or mythological things.

I gave the definition for chemtrail and you give the definition of contrail. two different definitions

can you work out why or do you have to be told,

It can be done in YouTube fashion as it seems many simply fall for whatever YouTube videos tell them.

I just typed in the word and definition into google. What is the shame in that?

Thinking that a definition somehow makes something real.


We defined what horses with horns in the middle of their head are but haven't ever seen one because they are from myth, Unicorns.

But hey because we have a definition of that word it must make the mythical creature real, right?

Chemtrail by definition is the same as car exhaust

Yet you posted the definition and its not.

Car exhaust gases come out of a cars exhaust system which is a part of the car.

Cars drive on roads on the ground.


How this is the same as planes flying ion the sky and leaving trails is simply beyond me.


are cars also releasing these biological agents?

How did you come to that conclusion? Please show your work!

see above,

you say its the same as car exhaust after posting a definition on the previous page that says its believed that chem-trails release chemical and biological agents.

verything you say has some truth in it but you fail to admit my point that contrails and chemtrails bot have exhaust in them and is made up of many pollutants. fact

Your point is based on fantasy.

your point is you want change an existing word into something else.

Contrail is defined, no need to change it.

Surely you all are not trying to claim that jets do not pollute? That is exactly what you say if you say chemtrails do not exist.

How do you interact with posters that can interpret things never alluded to.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Real funny!

Honestly your posting style here makes your points incoherent to many.