|
reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 11:41 AM by zorgon
|
Originally posted by pikypiky
Based on the comparison between these two photos (top one showing red-colored 'contrails' and bottom one showing military personnel wearing gas
masks) , I personally feel that any smoke, regardless of color, is poisonous to inhale.
But see Dave420's POINT is that a plane trailing chemicals is NOT a chemtrail...
But he doesn't BELIEVE that chemtrails exist...
But he wants proof that they do...
But planes trailing chemicals is not a chemtrail
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 04:38 PM by pteridine
|
reply to post by zorgon
Planes in airshows are not at 30,000 feet making contrails. They are operating smoke generators that are obvious and known to the observers.
Would you claim that airplanes are operating these smoke generators, unknown to the public, at high altitude for the purposes of dispersing something
in contrails with unknown intent?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 04:42 PM by pteridine
|
reply to post by zorgon
As we consider the condensation of exhaust from high altitude jets all unburned fuel will also condense in the trail. Hence all trails are
condensation trails or....contrails.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-12-2008 @ 01:29 PM by zorgon
|

Originally posted by pteridine
Would you claim that airplanes are operating these smoke generators, unknown to the public, at high altitude for the purposes of dispersing something
in contrails with unknown intent?
Hmmm very NICE statement...
To THAT one I will answer YES with one caveat... I do not claim ALL airplanes only some...
"are operating these smoke generators" YES
"unknown to the public" at the time of the photo, YES
'at high altitude for the purposes of dispersing something in contrails with unknown intent" YES until this was explained later
Point is they DO have the equipment, they DO use smoke trails at high altitudes for various purposes and they DO do things without checking with us
first to see if its okay or not
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 5-12-2008 @ 02:53 PM by MrPenny
|
reply to post by zorgon
Where is that photo originally from? Can you please the provide the context in which that photo was published? Yes, something is being
ejected.....no, it isn't contrail. So instead of the unspoken/unwritten implication....provide the source of the photo so we can determine if it is
something sneaky secret....or not.
With no explanatory text for the image, it's not quite on the "up and up" to post it with the wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
What is it? Where does the photo come from? Having seen and read your work....I'm willing to bet the source of the photo has a somewhat mundane
explanation for what that activity actually is.
Nevermind....just as I thought....
It's from vortex studies conducted by the Dryden Flight Research Center.
You're so sneaky zorgon.....
[edit on 5-12-2008 by MrPenny]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-12-2008 @ 11:39 PM by zorgon
|
Originally posted by MrPenny
Where is that photo originally from? Can you please the provide the context in which that photo was published?
Yeah sure thing Mr Penny Lets see about page one or two of this thread I believe... My third post in this thread
I even added this...
Originally posted by zorgon
Now the OFFICIAL 'story' is they are 'blowing smoke' for 'vortex studies'
Uh huh... I always buy the 'official story' especially from NASA
Point is even if they are 'smoke', they are definitely NOT CONTRAILS
Nevermind....just as I thought....
It's from vortex studies conducted by the Dryden Flight Research Center.
BRILLIANT Deduction on your part Mr Penny as always we can count on you
To bad you don't pay attention
You're so sneaky zorgon.....
Well not doing so well with that under your sharp eyes
Silly Lemmings
Well at least you confirmed that the have the equipment to spray something from high flying commercial type jets that are not contrails
Thanks
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 12:33 AM by pteridine
|
reply to post by zorgon
Why does the idea that spray equipment is available need such a tortuous proof? Of course smoke generators exist and planes are tested using smoke
generators. Photos are taken and published. No secret spraying from 30,000 feet.
Ground crews at commercial airports have not seen such devices on aircraft nor anyone loading such devices with dispersant. The amount of material
available for dispersion from such devices is small and is unable to accurately target ground facilities.
There is no supporting evidence for any NATO shield nor any possibility that what you have described would do what you claim. If the defense of the
nation depended on throwing dirt in the air we would be in sad shape. Any scheme to effect the radar would blind everyone's radar and allow hostile
aircraft to attack without warning; a very bad plan.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 12:20 PM by dave420
|
reply to post by pteridine
Chemtrailers don't need evidence. They just need their beliefs, and they will not surrender them to any logical argument. Trying to show how
fatally-flawed their position is will not result in any progress. You will simply be labeled a "disinfo agent" or "ignorant", even when neither
is true.
They are a lost cause. Anyone who will believe in something without any evidence what-so-ever will not stop believing in it even with all the
evidence in the world neatly displayed in front of their faces. It's a religion, not an intellectual exercise. They have their fantasy, and they
need to live it. It's not about learning for them, but existing in a world where super-secret government plans are everywhere, and only an
enlightened few, including themselves, knows the truth. It's like a band aid for paranoid insecurity.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 12:46 AM by zorgon
|
reply to post by dave420
Nice speech Dave
Of course you DO realize that your argument works against you as well yes? Couldn't have said it better my self.. mind if I quote ya on that? All I
need to do is exchange the word 'believer' to the word 'skeptic'
BTW have you seen my proof that Santa exists?
Stop being a Grinch and pop in to learn something
www.abovetopsecret.com...'
Ta ta...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 09:59 AM by dave420
|
reply to post by zorgon
You could, but you'd be flat-out lying. You have no evidence to support your beliefs. No direct samples taken from suspicious trails which turn out
to contain exotic chemicals. That is what you need, and indeed what any rational person would need, to believe in chemtrails. Yet you have forgone
that essential evidence and decided to jump right in and believe immediately. That is irrational. I believe that which can be demonstrated. You
haven't demonstrated anything. Except your gullibility and paranoia, that is.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 06:56 AM by MrPenny
|
Originally posted by zorgon
Yeah sure thing Mr Penny Lets see about page one or two of this thread I believe... My third post in this thread
How long have you been using and contributing to forums? You know as well as I do, that doesn't work in a 27 page thread. Everything quickly
becomes "out of context" in this format.
My assumption--based on your past practices--is to hope for, and count on readers jumping into the thread and inferring exactly what a
caption-less photo implies.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 12:40 PM by zorgon
|
Originally posted by MrPenny
How long have you been using and contributing to forums?
Way to long Mr Penny... WAY too long...
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 09:32 AM by Zaphod58
|
reply to post by zorgon
I know it's an old thread, but I have to reply to this one. Your "barely visible trail" is engine exhaust. The C-130s and most turboprop aircraft
leave a very faint brown cloud behind it when it flies from the engine exhaust. A lot of the time it's hard to see, but under the right conditions
you can see it.
pro.corbis.com...
Very faint, but you can see discoloration behind the aircraft:
www.dma.state.mn.us...
www.baseops.net...
|
copyright & usage
|
 |