Originally posted by illusions
So to clarify, are you stating that "contrails" are actually bad for our health, when you say that car emissions are just as bad for our health as
airplane emissions, if not worse? Huh? Just as bad for our helath you say???
Do you get sick from being around cars and other ground based vehicles?
If the answer is no, then you have the answer to the above question.
So not to put words in your mouth...
you did state that airplane emissions contained in the contrails are toxic and bad for our health, but appearantly you don't think the toxic
contrails which you clearly stated ar bad for our health should be referred to as chemtrails? Just to clarify.
I don't think I said toxic anywhere...
Yes they can be bad for your health, in high enough concentrations.
You better ask the chemtrailers as to what a chemtrail is, considering none of them claim that a plane with no visible contrail is spraying
chemtrails, despite the fact that it would still emit the same particulates.
Also, what is the purpose of the 1996 test as a "benchmark"?
Every scientific experiment needs a control, a baseline to compare other results with, this experiment is a suitable candidate for this, as it
replicates what a typical chemtrail is described as, ie, persistant (the samples were taken 22km behind the plane) and from a plane commonly
identified as a chemtrail plane (Boeing 757).
Can you clarify how the 1996 test can prove or disprove the chemtrails?
This one experiment can't, but as I explain above, it can be used as a control.
The next step is to duplicate the experiment on contrails believed to be chemtrails.
Once a number of samples have been taken, the results can be compared with the control.
Do you think that the 1996 test represents a helathy amount of toxins to breath?
The amount of particles collected is minute, there are probably more particles up my nose right now.
If you check out the links I provided and the article Essan posted, you can read all about the amount of pollutants are in the air, aircraft emissions
are only a small part of it.
Here's a tip, look into the amount and type of emissions paper mills spew out.
Do you believe that there were not what some refer to as "chem"trails in 1996
I don't believe there are chemtrails at all.
and therefore these tests could not have come from so called chemtrails?
Doubtful, the other plane that had samples collected from was from a DC8, which was also the sample collection plane.
It flew in a loop and overtook it's own contrail, so I don't see why they would sample their own chemtrails, then publish the results publicly.
If you believe there were what some refer to as chemtrails in 1996,
do you believe that these samples were taken from contrails that dissapated quickly, rather than contrails that stretch for many miles and linger for
hours and thereby these tests could serve as an example of a normal contrail?
As the paper says, these chemtrails weren't quick to dissipate.
The 757 contrail was about 22km long and the DC-8's contrail was estimated to be 280km long.
These are points that need to be clarified to prove or diprove contrails in your challenge here.
Contrails don't need proving or disproving, they're very real and no matter if they last for hours or minutes, visible or invisible, they produce
the same kind of pollutants.
Like I said, you'll need to take it up with the chemtrailers as to why they claim that only the visible trails are dangerous.
So far you have not presented a controlled scientific challenge it seems.
Yes, I have.
To prove chemtrails are real, samples need to be taken of these samples and compared with this benchmark.
Take samples of both chemtrails and contrails.
I can't tell the difference between the two, but apparently there is, so a chemtrail expert will have to define which is which, from the ground (easy
to do apparently), and then collect the samples.
And finally show if near on 100 years of aviation and weather science is actually wrong.
Also, you have presented a test that actually provess that contrails consist of toxins.
No, I presented a test that confirms that ice crystals will attach themselves to particulates, particularly crustal minerals.
The toxins have been known about for a long time.
What? Are you actually suprised that there is soot in exhaust?
Or that an engine made out of metal will exhaust metal particulates?
Or that an engine that needs air to operate will exhaust crustal particulates (meaning that they're naturally occurring in the air)?
Interesting points you make.
Well I think so.
Can I ask you a question.
If this thread was presented by a pro-chemtrailer, with a title along the lines of "I can prove chemtrails once and for all"
Would you have responded differently?
You see, I don't think the likes of Cliff Carnicon or William Thomas would have the guts to put their money where their mouth is.
Would you agree with that statement?