Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by ChemBreather
you are just programmed to say what you say, serious, you are saying the same thing over and over,

Uh huh.....from this side of the aisle, where we actually have blood delivering oxygen to our brains, the same sentiment can be applied to those that rabidly deny the science and rationality of what OzWeatherman provides.

I do not deny hes proof or facts about contrails, but dont smack contrail info claiming it to be chemtrails, wich is not the same thing.

From another thread.

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Anyways, as stated here, the trail lasted so long that if he wanted to continiue timing the trail, he had to get in hes car and drive after it beyond the horizon, and you can not say that for normal contrails, as he also states here, is that the contrails on this day, lasted about 20 seconds, afew lasted abit longer but not even close to 5 and 6 hours.
Debunk that without just denying Chemtrails..

- Zaphod58
-That's an easy one. They were flying at different altitudes. One was flying at an altitude where the atmospheric conditions were better for a contrail to persist than the others. As for the flights not on flight tracker, they were most likely military flights, which could have been anything.

- ' It could be anything, but not chemplanes', isnt that right Sir?

Again, just blindly dismiss the fact that unidentefiable flights that accured in the same area and time where Chemtrails where observed by saying what he said,see quote above.

So if unmarked Nato planes are operating outside the law, you would not get any Government statement on that, if you think so, take a reality check..

Again , here is that link I am refering to, according to you people, all the information on this page is Fabricated and Miss-information, is that how I should understand it ??

Observations of Flight Explorer confirmed contrails and highly persistent trails from jets not appearing on Flight Explorer are graphed for persistence and by date. The persistence of the highly persistent trails is an approximate generalized value of 6 hours, actual persistence could be shorter or longer. The magnitude of persistence makes accurate individual measurements difficult due to logisitical and temporal challenges.

reply to post by ChemBreather


Your source has a clear bias....rendering it useless for reasoned, nonpartisan discussion. Furthermore, military flights are generally not logged in Flight Explorer for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Again, just blindly dismiss the fact that unidentefiable flights that accured in the same area and time where Chemtrails where observed by saying what he said,see quote above.

So if unmarked Nato planes are operating outside the law, you would not get any Government statement on that, if you think so, take a reality check..

Again , here is that link I am refering to, according to you people, all the information on this page is Fabricated and Miss-information, is that how I should understand it ??

First of all, who said anything about them being unmarked? ALL aircraft are marked, you just can't always see the markings from the ground.

Secondly, as MrPenny said, it would be amazingly stupid to put military flights into a flight tracking website.

Third, how do you get they're operating outside the law?

reply to post by OzWeatherman

The government wants us to believe that chemtrails are not real, but that Bin Laden is still alive.

...that mercury in childhood vaccines is safe-------look at all the vaccine tards running around

...that aspartame is safe

...that DU is harmless to humans

And they have plenty of paid experts to back them up.

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by ChemBreather

 

Your source has a clear bias....rendering it useless for reasoned, nonpartisan discussion. Furthermore, military flights are generally not logged in Flight Explorer for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

Yes, that page has alot of How's and Why's , you dont aprove of it, and so will you allways do , caus as long as apage is about chemtrail, you blindly refuse to accept it, so in your own little bubble, there are no chemtrails just as there is no wrong doers in the world...
I think the links provided are just as biased as mine, so how should this go ? Your info are true , and mine are not? pretty ignorant if you ask me.

You say it flatout, all evidence about chems are not trustworthy.
And about being unmarked and outside the law was just an example on how BlackOps is not listed or reported in news conferenses.

I have read that these planes are unmarked Nato planes, but Im not going to digg into that.....(haarp dont exist either, yet we have 2 or 3 of them here in Norway under Nato command)...

Originally posted by son of PC
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

The government wants us to believe that chemtrails are not real,

Well, just suppose you were spraying something in the atmosphere? You don't want people to know but you suspect that sooner or later someone may get wind of your evil plan. What would you do?

How about starting an internet rumour that something else was evidence of this spraying - something so obvious and readily disproveable that thereafter anyone believing that spraying really was taking place would quickly be labelled a fool.

If chemtrails are real they will almost certainly be invisible from the ground.

It takes the idea of hiding in plain sight to a whole new level!

reply to post by ChemBreather


There is no evidence for anything called "chemtrails." There is no reason for anything called "chemtrails." Dispersal of materials from high altitude aircraft is the worst possible way to deliver a dose of anything to a specific population. The landing area and concentrations of any such material are not controllable.
Chemical analyses of "chemtrail evidence" posted by the chemtrail people show high concentrations of Aluminum. That is from aluminosilicates, which most people know as "dirt." These folks have no idea how to sample and no idea what the analyses means. They just need a conspiracy to sell CD's to the gullible.
Fortunately, any conspirators who select this method for toxic material delivery would not be bright enough to injure anyone but themselves.

reply to post by doctordoom


Way to copy and paste that anonymous post from another thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for your answer you say that one in ten thousand should even form a contrail, in 2006 there were almost 50,000 flights a day worldwide. That number has gone up since then, and it's estimated now that there are as many as 90,000 flights a day, including small commercial aircraft.

Now out of those, if you have one that leaves a contrail, then any other aircraft flying a route through the same area will leave a contrail as well. So if you have five flights a day going from Newark to Los Angeles, you're going to have five flights going on a similar route, which means five contrails.

I have a serious question for these 'chemtrail' enthusiasts.

If we went back to, say, 1920 or so, when airplanes rarely exceeded 10,000 feet, do believe there were no clouds? More specifically cirrus, for example.

A little real study of meteorology would be a good start at finding that answer.

ya know, even a cursory glznce at a textbook should be sufficient to show how approaching weather fronts announce their impending arrival with a variety of high-level cloud forms....is it an occluded front? A fast-moving cold front? A liesurely moving warm front?

As far as a Military/NATO alleged 'spraying'....at what altitudes do you think this is happening? In the United States, even the Military/NATO planes have to file IFR with Air Traffic Control abouve 18,000. Airspace is crowded...the civilian and Military traffic MUST be under Positive Control, anywhere they are prone to mix.

Or....perhaps one can allege that they are 'spraying' under VFR below 18,000? No flight plans required under those conditions....except, then it's not meeting the standards of a 'persistent chemtrail'....

Logic fallacy. Coupled with a bit of misinformation, and bad science.

Guess I'd better wrap this up, I see the flaming arrows on the horizon......

EDIT to add.....in the UK, anything above 6,000 feet must file an IFR flight plan. Difference? Terrain considerations. No big ole' Rocky Mountaiins to hit over there.



[edit on 3/16/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ChemBreather
You say it flatout, all evidence about chems are not trustworthy.
And about being unmarked and outside the law was just an example on how BlackOps is not listed or reported in news conferenses.

I have read that these planes are unmarked Nato planes, but Im not going to digg into that.....(haarp dont exist either, yet we have 2 or 3 of them here in Norway under Nato command)...

Do you even know the standard size of an aircraft marking? Any clue? There is no way that you are going to see markings from the ground, unless it's an airline with a lot of the plane painted, like the entire tail, or stripes down the side.

Military planes are only required to have the tail number painted somewhere the back of the aircraft, in standard sized numbers.

I was sort of stunned when I read the chemtrail theories. I couldn't believe folks could believe it. It made no sense to me on many levels. For example...

Why would they spray chemicals so high in the sky? Consider that even LOW flying crop dusting is given a hard time, because it's considered an inaccurate method of delivering pesticides (up to 80% of the chemicals can end up NOT on the crops). And you are seriously suggesting they are spraying them in multitudes higher in the air? And expecting to actually hit a target? What % of chemicals do they expect to reach their target? .01%?

Why are they not found in soil and water samples? The only thing someone could come up with is the random barium sampling. But according to these theories, sometimes the 'chem' spraying is so heavy, it creates a fog over the city! If they are spraying that densely, one would guess they would expect this stuff to have some resulting effect. Or there is no point. And even though daily soil and water sampling is done in EVERY major (and many minor.. and in the sticks) city, these mystery chemicals are not found. Why not? Do you realize how many organizations, both commercial and Federal test water/wasterwater and soil?

And that's just for starters. But bottom line, if I were trying to distribute something to the masses, I'd think there would be MUCH better and easier and more effective ways than spraying masses of chemicals in the air and hoping for the best.

well.....I haven't seen enough information to make an opinion one way or the other. However, if you do a google picture search for Chemtrail plane, you come up with this.....

images.google.com...:en-USfficial&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=HGe-SayBJdO2twe2mtz3Cw&resnum=0&sa=N&hl=e n&tab=vi

Or do a video search....

video.google.com...:en-USfficial&um=1&ei=HGe-SayBJdO2twe2mtz3Cw&resnum=0&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 &sa=N&tab=iv#

The creator of the main video, on the page, claims that this particular plane is owned by a defense contractor.

Not looking for an argument......just sharing.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by ChemBreather
You say it flatout, all evidence about chems are not trustworthy.
And about being unmarked and outside the law was just an example on how BlackOps is not listed or reported in news conferenses.

I have read that these planes are unmarked Nato planes, but Im not going to digg into that.....(haarp dont exist either, yet we have 2 or 3 of them here in Norway under Nato command)...

Do you even know the standard size of an aircraft marking? Any clue? There is no way that you are going to see markings from the ground, unless it's an airline with a lot of the plane painted, like the entire tail, or stripes down the side.

Military planes are only required to have the tail number painted somewhere the back of the aircraft, in standard sized numbers.

You are just stuck on the 'norm' of things.
just must go outside the boX my man...
Like yesterday, I posted a picture I took of a plane coming in for landing at OSL, they always fly that rout to the airport, yester I saw lotsa planes none of them had 'trails' out of the ordenary, liter, about 17:00, 2 planes come, maby more, I just saw two, both wich fly criss cross and not following the rout for inbound and outgoing planes. 40 - 60 minutes later, completely overcast, and to day, it is still overcast plus a hint of heavy fog.
You may claim contrail all you want, I say something else.

I took several pictures at the end of February, getting ready to take my Daughter to school, went out in the back garden to uncover my Motorcycle for the afternoon, and saw these vapor trails, now I don't know if these things are sinister in any way, but I have to say, this didn't happen when I was a kid.













What I will say is that more and more planes flew over as the morning went by, and the clouds got thicker, I was in Wales in the afternoon so didn't see if it continued.

I also need to add, Liverpool, is on the flight path for Aircraft heading out towards Ireland and towards the USA or Canada, what is a little odd, at that time normally we usually see planes heading out over the Sea, by the dozen, all heading the same way all joining a flight path then they are gone, these planes where coming from every which way they could, criss crossing the sky then heading south towards London.

So are these chem trails? or just con trails? never had anything fall from the sky which could be collected, it had been raining and we could smell ozone in the air, but again that isn,t unusual, we have a power station about 10 miles away which is constantly pumping moisture into the sky, which causes local weather anomalies (heavier rain, or snow when we get some) .

[edit on 16/3/2009 by azzllin]

On that last picture, you see higher up , an Contrail, and look at the others, they are so dense that you actualy can see shadows on them.
And again , these seems to be much lower in flight altitude also.

Lucky those planes werent higher up , or they would freeze into huge snowball sized crystals...

reply to post by azzllin


I can honestly say that when I was a kid I didn't spend all my time looking up at the sky and could not say how frequent persistent contrails were. But given the huge increase in air traffic over the past 2 decades it's be bizarre if there were not more such contrails today.

The pictures clearly show normal contrails and the formation of some cirrostratus ahead of an incoming front. Wasn't the 22nd Feb was it? That was a day of big persistent contrails down here too.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f0340289e80.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e053f60431c4.jpg[/atsimg]

This video from the TV documentary 'Britain from Above' gives a good indication of just how much air traffic there is criss crossing our little island every day.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Not only is it unplausible, it is complete nonsense, utter bunk, and ridiculous. No one outside of a few people even believe this is happening anyway, and those who do, please find the containers inside the commercial jets that are dispersing these chemicals.

My best friend is a commercial pilot and he laughs at this so much.

yea, you people can say whatever you want. but im here to tell you that its more than plausible, it IS happening.

2 years ago every time it snowed (i live in north central British Columbia) it was a nice and fresh white color, it packed into perfect snowballs that still broke on impact and the snow only refracted a portion of the light that it does now.

in the last 2 years the color of the snow has slowly been going blue, it refracts HUGE ammount of light, to the point that i can still hardley go out without my oakley maddogs (100% UV protection). when making snowballs you can REALY see the blue, and the snowballs pack to be way more dense than normal snow.

THIS is just the circumstantial evidance, i'll try and find the toxicolagy report for my DEAD DOG who died of aluminum hydroxide poisoning and the toxicolagy report of the "snow" in my back yard that is 1/8 aluminum hydroxide. basicley my dog died from eating the snow.

say whatever you want about chem trails, but know that your merley being ignorant.

Originally posted by rocksarerocks

... My best friend is a commercial pilot and he laughs at this so much.

Oh really? My best friend is a commercial pilot also and he thinks these CHEM-trails aren't funny at all, but VERY SERIOUS!

Now, the Memphis Belle video is neat, but what about this one: CHEMTRAILS THE TRUTH:


One of the YouTube comments (not all comments on YouTube are ignorant...):

".... the spraying has increased worlwide . there will be heaps of info coming up here for ya, if you want to make your own conclusions. the health implications are more than just enormous ... this is connected to having a population of just half a billion people on the planet by 2029. but were not gonna let that happen....".

(external source: www.youtube.com...)

[edit on 16-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody

Originally posted by rocksarerocks

... My best friend is a commercial pilot and he laughs at this so much.

Really? My best friend is commercial pilot also and he thinks these CHEMtrails aren't funny at all, but VERY SERIOUS.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]

Yes and he is FULLY briefed on EVERY THING hes airline DO ? Fat chance my friend !!! And how can you say we should crawl in under an comercial plane? we get arrested for tresspassing and/or terrorsm as fast as Zapp !

www.ufodigest.com

I receive emails daily now concerning these lines of cloud forming whatever it is from people all over the world. The people who write to me all share their concern not only over what these things may be but also about the way everyone around them ignore them.

And ofcourse this post is 'utterbunk' since it is from UfeDigest, Right ?
No one speaks the truth, just official websites where truths are distorded and hidden...

[edit on 16-3-2009 by ChemBreather]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by ChemBreather]