Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

page: 27
61
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

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






posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
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?



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

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




posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
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]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   

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



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
well im glad to know that is not purposeful spraying to attempt weather modifications or wide spread respitory infections. But the planes her in central illinois have been turning clear skies into complete overcasts by the mid afternoon. they begin the same way as your picture, small whispy lines. But by the end of the afternoon they have dispersed into whispy cirrus clouds with patches of dense saturation - causing blotchy cloud cover.

It is really agitating to have beautiful horizons polluted by these "trails". and honestly I must have been half retarted as a kid, becuase I never noticed it with such prevalence until literally this year. I find it quite unbelievable that I have sooooo many above my head here in small town illinois where I go to school, and small town illinois where my rents live- so it must be in small towns, and big cities covering the entire country everyday.

If so many people can afford private jets.... why is our nation about to see the collapse of its currency???


I know this is going off topic, I appreciate your well informed post and links. Good Luck.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
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...



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

How long have you been using and contributing to forums?


Way to long Mr Penny... WAY too long...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
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...



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Bump - I think a few people need to read this....I'm sure they won't like it, and no doubt will go sulk somewhere about it or call everyone with an interest in actual facts, science and verifiable evidence shills, tc.

But that's jsut tough!





new topics
top topics
 
61
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join