Chemtrails Vs Contrails... There's a MASSIVE Difference!!! Check these out...

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Please forgive if this is old news:


SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) [any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.


This is from Bill H. R. 2977. It mentions the specific word 'chemtrails' in it.

So someone IS aware of its existence... BUT, you just need to confuse the masses of what the actual definition of this word is.

Link




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by quintar
 


a) the use of the word chemtrail does not mean that contrails are chemtrails - what makes you think they are? After all, persistent contrails have been around for decades.

b) the truth behind the bill is something chemtrail disinformationists choose to ignore

contrailscience.com...

Fact: this bill provides exactly nil evidence that persistent contrails have anything whatsoever to do with chemtrails.

(and all photos of alleged chemtrails look 100% identical to contrails)

Conclusion?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I Have already proven Chemtrails are a real threat and different than contrails in the debate forum.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

check it out if anyone wants to argue with you.
I proved it beyond doubt with a proposed bill that listed chemtrails as an exotic weapon.

Its all in the thread.

I have seen these things as they are laid down and watched over the course of the day as they spread out slowly across the sky in some cases until it looked like a natural cloud cover. totally overcast!



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


And I have pointed out that mentioning chemtrails in a bill which was never passed is not evidence (let alone proof) that what those of us who have taken the time to study the subject say are contrails are anything else.

After all the bill doesn't actually describe what a chemtrail look like, does it? What makes you think a chemtrail looks identical to a contrail?

Where is your evidence that any contrail is a chemtrail? After all, I can provide dozens of scientific papers written over several decades which describe exactly what are claimed as being chemtrails and in every case they are shown as being contrails...

for example:

ams.allenpress.com...

Ah, problem?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
lol

problem?

I am not the one blind to the evidence.

I watch a plane drop a line that turns into cloud cover when contrails are supposed to dissapate and you tell me I have a problem?

Keep taking your happy pills and stay in your bliss.. meanwhile the rest of us will try to figure out what their purpose is and put a stop to it for all of us.. even those oblivious to the threat.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


Nephra....you 'proved' the alleged 'chemtrails'?

Amazing....you 'proved' it?

Although, as has been mentioned very recently, in this thread (maybe) but in others....if you want to direct a 'spray' on a target, you fly low...ever seen crop dusting? Or fire fighting from the air?

Sorry....a chemical at 35,000 feet is completely useless....do you not understand the jetstream? I haven't read your linked thread, yet, obviously, so if you addressed that concept my apologies.

Right now, I have errands to run, so I'll come back and see what sort of 'proof' you provided.

Can't wait.

WW



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   


I watch a plane drop a line that turns into cloud cover when contrails are supposed to dissapate and you tell me I have a problem?




Can you tell me at what rate or time a standard contrail is supposed to dissipate and why/how this is?


[edit on 18-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari

I watch a plane drop a line that turns into cloud cover when contrails are supposed to dissapate and you tell me I have a problem?


I say you watch a plane drop a line that turns into cloud cover and I say we all have a problem .... because it impacts on weather and climate. And science has been studying this for decades - as I have shown.

If you can prove that a persistent contrail occurs when atmospheric conditions say it should not, that'd be a different matter. It'd suggest that contrails are really chemtrails after all .... So the ball is in your court.

I don't dispute chemtrails. I dispute the idea that contrails are chemtrails.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Sorry essan I misunderstood you. They are two very different things. I agree.
I have seen a contrail right next to a chemtrail there is a definate difference.
The contrails disapate withing minutes if not sooner.. chemtrails remain and spread out.

My apologies.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by NephraTari
 


Nephra....you 'proved' the alleged 'chemtrails'?

Amazing....you 'proved' it?

Although, as has been mentioned very recently, in this thread (maybe) but in others....if you want to direct a 'spray' on a target, you fly low...ever seen crop dusting? Or fire fighting from the air?

Sorry....a chemical at 35,000 feet is completely useless....do you not understand the jetstream? I haven't read your linked thread, yet, obviously, so if you addressed that concept my apologies.

Right now, I have errands to run, so I'll come back and see what sort of 'proof' you provided.

Can't wait.

WW

Visit the link I posted for the proof!
There was an entire debate around this topic and I won in the end btw. The judges determined I had proven my point that they are real and a threat.

When politicians acknowledge something even in a proposed piece of legislature.. If you cannot accept that as proof... then there is little then what the heck can you consider proof? It is much more substantial than some 2nd rate website heresay. . We are talking legislation!



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
lol

problem?

I am not the one blind to the evidence.

I watch a plane drop a line that turns into cloud cover when contrails are supposed to dissapate and you tell me I have a problem?


Yes, you are blind to the evidence.

When it's a well known meteorological phenomena thats been described and studied for decades - and I've provided numerous papers showing this - and you refuse to accept this, then yes, you have a problem.

Maybe if you could show this is something different to normal contrails? Maybe if you could provide evidence refuting just a few of the dozens of scientific papers relating to contrails?

And I mean more than youtube videos



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
Sorry essan I misunderstood you. They are two very different things. I agree.
I have seen a contrail right next to a chemtrail there is a definate difference.
The contrails disapate withing minutes if not sooner.. chemtrails remain and spread out.



But contrails also remain and spread out. This has been observed and studied since the 1940s.

There are hundreds of scientific papers describing this phenomena.

And that's the whole point: so called chemtrails are nothing new and are 100% identical to normal contrails.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I feel like I am having a conversation with two people when I talk to you essan..


which essan are we talking to now? lol



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
There's only one Essan. He has serious concerns about the effect huge increases in air traffic has on climate. He's also an amateur meteorologist (and an a friend of professionals) and issues weekly weather forecasts in the uk.

www.wiseweather.co.uk...

I don't hide who I am



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
here is a screen capture from the second video in the op



DaRAGE, if you can get a mod to put the image into your OP it may improve the front page of the thread.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
That picture shows there is an area of relatively high humidity where the "chemtrail" persists. At the higher altitude of the other plane, the contrail evaporates or sublimates due to lower ambient humidity. Further, though it doesn't look to be the case in this photo, two aircraft with different engines can fly at the same altitude and one may produce contrails and the other not.
It'd be nice to know when and where the photo's were so you could also research wind (both surface and at altitude) which might effect the area where a "chemtrail" would persist.
Unless every government in the world has been in on this since the 1940's, I honestly can't see anything inexplicable.

Here is a report from an international panel: www.ipcc.ch...


[edit on 18-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


These were taken in a span of days. I have the originals if anyone asks.





There above two images show an airplane, ascending, and no trails that I can see. They were taken this evening.




The above (bad camera) picture shows a chemtrail right opposite the same shot of the airplane.










The above images were taken an hour earlier, and you can see at least 3 trails there. No planes to be found.


Days before:





Same sky, same height, same area.


Here is the gallery where I uploaded the originals, in a larger resolution.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Same sky. 5 minutes ago. Do you see the newly added trail?


Link



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Yes I see the new condensation trail.

Contrails can persist. It is shown in multiple studies by people without a vested interest in covering up the US government's illegal spraying of mind control substances or poisons who have a better grasp of the science than anyone I have seen here display (including, of course, myself).



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


Yes


Chemtrails - if they exist - are something completely different.

They are unlikely to be visible from the ground, it's highly unlikely they will only be sprayed in areas where atmospheric conditions are ripe for persistent contrails to form, and the video/photographic evidence frequently presented as 'proof' of chemtrails is nothing of the sort, just misinterpretation of normal contrails, clouds and other well documented and studied atmospheric phenomena, by those who have little experience at studying such things.


How do you know they are just normal contrails?
YOU DON'T
Did you take samples of all those "contrails" in all those pictures?
YOU DIDN'T
How can you tell by just looking at them?
YOU CAN'T
You say we cant say they are chemtrails by just looking at them
I SAY, YOU CANT SAY THEY ARE JUST CONTRAILS JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM.



P.S. It is my belief that chemtrails are sprayed to control weather and in doing this the Chemtrails need to be visible please review my past posts before you make such weak arguments that have already been explained.

-Alien



  exclusive video


top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join