beep: my two cence: what happened the other day: Instead of a chemtrail I saw the absence of one, like a series of clouds, with a continuing streak through them, so that you could see the blue skie.

While i do not fully buy into chemtrails as such ( or have checked it out enough to be sure) i can sketch a pretty good scenario when it comes to the why...

We all know the American government loves spending tax payer money( these days it's Chinese and Japanese money ) on the defense industrial complex so the how they could get enough planes to conduct this operation should hardly presents problems IF it was strategically important. The planes would obviously be dual use for transportation or even civilian use so it would not be dead end spending even if the US defense complex could allow Boeing to go under, somehow.

The strategically important reason for all this would be global heating wich we know to be a fact. What most people do not know is that it's the whole solar system heating up and not just planet earth leading logically to the assumption that whatever we are doing to this planet is not the sole reason for it. Something is going on with our Sun and the US government have chosen to invest in a dual use strategy by wich is sprays artificial cloud cover x ammount of time with planes and personal being available for other emergencies and contingencies on short notice. Why sign up to Kyoto treaty wich leaves you vulnerable to other doing their part when you can go it alone and keep the money in house spent on your own industries and people.....

So that is my theory fitting a few facts i happen to have together on very ( 10 minutes) notice.

I really believe that when people or government have decided the 'why' the 'how' becomes very much a question of time and thus not really relevant to the why. Please do not treat this as some final statement of American intent as it's just my opinion wich happens to make a great deal of sense to myself.

I can post a few dozen links of source/inspirational material or just flesh it out in general if anyone is interested. Might just do it wether there is interest or not!

Well i hope for some comments by tonight...

Anyways!

Stellar

you dont feel that the colour tints make it chemtrails not contrails then?
I read that contrails wont show those colours

Originally posted by Magickman
Hey, japike...
Ther are a lot of people who will tell you that chemtrails do not exist, but as you know, they can easily be seen in the air.

yup, and they tell you that because you dont seem to be able to provide any proof at all that they do exist. every single picture i have ever seen on any of these threads is easily explainable. the problem is that people are so close minded that they dont want to admit that there is no basis to these imaginary chemtrails, and the minute you try to explain the pictures to them in a professional manner, they get anal and start talking about how ignorant you are for not seeing things their way, regardless of the fact that they have absolutely no proof.

if you dont want your "evidence" debunked, then take it to the skunk works for discussion.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Sorry, I saw the reply identifying the plane after I posetd this. That's ok, I like the pics anyway since I took them.

thats ok, theyre great pics! having had the honor of riding in the back, let me tell you, it is one helluva kick in the pants when those jatos go off!

from your source anok:

Editor's Note: Las Vegas residents are increasingly noticing the appearance of chemical trails overhead. They appear EVERY weekend without fail, the only exception being the two weeks after September 11, 2001.

you think maybe that was because there was virtually no air traffic over the US for the 2 weeks following 9/11?

also from your source:

I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. --Voltaire

thats pretty much where i stand on chemtrails. i think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this subject

Originally posted by snafu7700you think maybe that was because there was virtually no air traffic over the US for the 2 weeks following 9/11?

Well I think that was the point of the statement, no? I don't think they were asking why.

thats pretty much where i stand on chemtrails. i think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this subject

Well good for you. Not my problem. I didn't post the link to that article for you or any body else that chooses to stay asleep and uninformed. I posted it for those that are truly interested and might want to read it. Is that OK?


So how do you explain what Las Vegas citizens are noticing? Swamp gas?
I guess they're all just a bunch of "nut bars" and only "smart" people like you have the inside knowledge on all that the government does?

How do you explain what Dennis Kucinich said?

Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio authored the Space Preservation Act of 2001, which sought a "permanent ban against weapons in space," specifically banning "chemtrails" as weapons. But in a subsequent version of the bill, the "chemtrails" language disappeared entirely. The missing words suggest an eyes-wide-open denial, which says as much about the cover-up as it does about the spraying that's plainly visible in the sky.
In a front-page story entitled "Conspiracy theorists look up," the Akron Beacon Journal noted that Kucinich's bill "had been rewrittenand the references to chemtrails and the other types of weapons were quietly eliminated." The Beacon Journal article, linking chemtrails to conspiracies, resulted from massive local pressure. Michel Massullo of Akron provided that newspaper with rolls of photos of plane trails and a sworn affidavit attesting to extensive aerial activity over that city.

Do you really think this is ALL just being made up? Mass halucinations?
What? Did you even read both articles all the way through?

Where there's smoke there is usualy fire.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by snafu7700you think maybe that was because there was virtually no air traffic over the US for the 2 weeks following 9/11?

Well I think that was the point of the statement, no? I don't think they were asking why.

well, the point of my statement, (and i'm disappointed that i actually have to explain it to you) was that those pictures show perfectly normal contrails, and that of course they were not present for the two weeks following 9/11, because there was no traffic in the air to produce any contrails.

Well good for you. Not my problem. I didn't post the link to that article for you or any body else that chooses to stay asleep and uninformed. I posted it for those that are truly interested and might want to read it. Is that OK?

man, i really dont understand why you get so defensive when someone disagrees with you on this. especially when they do it as nicely as i have done. if you dont want criticism of what is obviously crap evidence, then take it to the skunk works where we are not allowed to make any negative comments about your theories.

So how do you explain what Las Vegas citizens are noticing? Swamp gas?
I guess they're all just a bunch of "nut bars" and only "smart" people like you have the inside knowledge on all that the government does?

again, from the pictures i have seen, most likely an increase in normal air traffic through that area. just my opinion on that one though, as i have no numbers to back it up.

Where there's smoke there is usualy fire.

that comment kind of reminds me of a scene from 'the wizard of oz'
"pay no attention to the man behind the screen"

I thought about replying to some of the things said in the article, but then I realized that anything I said I'd get jumped all over for it, so it's just not worth it. There might be something going on, but I don't think it's nearly on the scale that people claim it is, but since anyone that disagrees is going to get jumped all over it just ain't worth the effort.

Originally posted by snafu7700
well, the point of my statement, (and i'm disappointed that i actually have to explain it to you) was that those pictures show perfectly normal contrails, and that of course they were not present for the two weeks following 9/11, because there was no traffic in the air to produce any contrails.

*Shakes head* First off what pictures? I didn't post any pictures, just an article in a locally respected newspaper.
Obvioulsy there was no trails because there was no traffic, normal OR miltary experimental. Again the point in the statement wasn't that they were surprised by no chemtrails. Just that they said EVERY weekend, so they had to add EXCEPT to it right. I can't believe I'm having to explain it to you.

man, i really dont understand why you get so defensive when someone disagrees with you on this. especially when they do it as nicely as i have done. if you dont want criticism of what is obviously crap evidence, then take it to the skunk works where we are not allowed to make any negative comments about your theories.

Who's getting defensive? And it's not my theory. You can make negative coments all day I don't care, like I said.

again, from the pictures i have seen, most likely an increase in normal air traffic through that area. just my opinion on that one though, as i have no numbers to back it up.

You can't just dismiss something from pictures you see on the web, get out into the real world once in awhile and look up, you might notice something like I did. And until you know for sure one way or the other an open mind is a healthy mind.

that comment kind of reminds me of a scene from 'the wizard of oz'
"pay no attention to the man behind the screen"

Err....What?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I thought about replying to some of the things said in the article, but then I realized that anything I said I'd get jumped all over for it, so it's just not worth it.

What? You mean like when the de-bunkers jump all over us "believers".

Don't you realise that's why ppl like Off the Street call us "Nut Bars".
So that we give up due to never ending ridecule?

Try being in "our" shoes for awhile

Truth is you probably can't reply to that article. Go back to sleep everything is all OK. Las Vegas is full of Nut Bars anyway, right?