over kill chemtrails (pics)

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by __rich__
The only ones who really know are the chemists who produce the jet fuel and related additives.

If there was a massive conspiracy to add chemicals to the normal fuel supply in order to alter the atmosphere then there would be more people who know.

They guys who ordered it. The guys who dreamed the plan up. The people who handle the fuel. The people who produce the fuel. All atmospheric researchers in the world (they would notice a considerable change in the atmosphere consistent with injecting a large amount of chemicals into it..). The people who analyze the run-off fuels on the airport grounds (at least the airport I worked at did that, regularly). The researchers who develop new fuels. A ton of universities (from Prof to Student). And practically every hobby aviationist and sky watcher around the world (they would consistently witness the canges)... Doctors and Hospitals around the world (if it is indeed consciously poisened)....

I don't think that nobody else would note. There's tons of people who come to my mind who would.

It seems evident from this thread and the myriad of internet sites and buzz surrounding the issue, many people have noticed.

Also, maybe the project isn't in full mobilization, but still extensive in vivo experimentation stages. Just to see, if indeed, it works in real world application.

"Although the “trade secret” ingredients are well protected by the manufacturer, a recent study contracted by the EPA [10] and other sources strongly imply that these ingredients are salts of barium and/or calcium. The EPA classifies this dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt as a “HPV” (High Production Volume) chemical, meaning it is “produced or imported into the United States in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year [12].” This same study reports that “Based on the available toxicity results, dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt appears to be the most biologically active member of the [dinonylnaphthalene] category [10].”

chemtrails.cc...



[edit on 25-7-2010 by __rich__]

Originally posted by PsychoX42
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

Please, show me a pic of a chemtrail plane. I'd love to see this.

He can't, because there are no such things.

Except, some of your brethren in these posts INSIST that there are such things. So, who's right, you or them?

The chemicals are in the fuel, not a dispersing mechanism. Jet fuel is filled with chemicals...not H2O. It makes me wonder where you could come up with something as silly as this notion.

1st, H2O is a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion; so, yes it is in the fuel.

What other "chemicals" are in the fuel?
Please enlighten us: A short list of the most dangerous would be of great help.

And, don't get me wrong. They don't need to lace the sky with additional "chemicals" other than the one's that they naturally use for it to be noxious to the atmosphere.

OK. so do they add other chemicals, or not?
Which ones do "they naturally use," and who are "they?"

Either way, the chemicals are there.

Which ones? Please tell us. Again.
What do they do?
What are your symptoms and who is affected?

A contrail by any other definition is a "chemtrail."

According to whom?
Please elaborate on the composition of your standard, non-toxic "contrails," and the dangerous "chemtrails" this thread is premised upon.

Or, are they ALL equally toxic?

It doesn't matter which word that you use.

Why not? Some on this thread INSIST there is a difference and that those who do not know this are somehow ignorant or brainwashed.
Please tell us which is correct.

Either way, chemicals are being put into the sky, whether you would like to believe that in your mind or not. They're there.

Which ones?
Where?
What are they doing to us?
Please help us!

We have this other thing known as cloud seeding. Its been a fact for decades. Nearly half of a millennium. Can you argue with this?

And? Are you equating cloud seeding with chem/con-trails?

There IS a difference: "Can you argue with this?"

Has anyone been harmed by cloud seeding? Who, when where and how, (please)?

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 25-7-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by __rich__

Sorry man but i you think any of the cosy gang will even look at that link well yea might as well dream here as in bed!


[edit on 25-7-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

The off topic banter and personal attacks...

Stop now... If those involved would like to witness the formation of administrative actions and U2U's of admonishment please continue... I know the exact origin of those.



Mod Note: Post On Topic – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Posting Conduct… Play The Ball – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Thanks.



[edit on 25/7/2010 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by __rich__

 

Sorry man but i you think any of the cosy gang will even look at that link well yea might as well dream here as in bed!


[edit on 25-7-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

That's why I quoted the important part.

Climate Modification or "GeoEngineering" is nothing new:



www.lightwatcher.com...

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Sofar, nobody has a reasonable explanation for the fact that lots and lots of people are seeing that the skies aren't the same as 10-15 years ago.

You can "debunk" chemtrails all you want, call it contrails, fact remains that the skies keep getting hazed up, and it's not normal, and more and more people are noticing this.

None of you have ever proven the skies are any different. And it was such a drastic change, then why did the people who notice, only seem to think about it after visiting chemtrail websites?

and chemtrails at first was not about persistent contrails. Around 2000 when I first visited chemtrail websites, much of it was about contrails at supposedly low levels, but then the conspiracy/hoax changed to persistent contrails.

And even with this, there are two different chemtrail believer views in regards to persistence. Some day persistent contrails are impossible (because some chemtrail websites say so) and some say it is posssible but just there is more of it.

But its certainly no coincidence, that the people who believe in chemtrails know little to absolutely nothing about aviation and meteroogy, and those who know a bit about those, can tell how bonkers this chem-spiracy is



[edit on 25-7-2010 by firepilot]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Sofar, nobody has a reasonable explanation for the fact that lots and lots of people are seeing that the skies aren't the same as 10-15 years ago.

How much are there then? Have you at least got hard data on that? Allthough you should remember that truth is not measured in mass appeal. Many people believeing something that simply isn't true is a very common phenomenon and happens all the time. Massive conspiracies don't occur all that often, as far as we can know.

Even if it has no bearing on the question of existence chemtrails or not it would be interesting to study exactly how many people believe in the chemtrail myth. I bet it is very marginable, as I said the majority of people in this thread seem no to have noticed allthough vividly watching the sky - many other people I know to be observant of the sky haven't noticed any change besides the increase in airtravel and transport.

You can "debunk" chemtrails all you want, call it contrails, fact remains that the skies keep getting hazed up, and it's not normal, and more and more people are noticing this.

What does "more and more" mean? I've got the impression that the belief in the chemtrail myth spiked years ago; today it is not all that popular anymore. Allthough that's just a personal observation.

Still I doubt that the numbers of believers are significant. Of all the plane-chasing photo freaks that I know of, not one has ever responded affirmative when I inquired.

But then again. The burden of proof is not on the debunkers. Instead of just claiming that there are more and more - why not collect hard data on it and come back to this thread with a convincing argument - debunkers minds are minds desperate to be convinced by a good argument. I would love it if this were real, i'd find it very entertaining and full of possible personal suspense but you'll have to bring more than "people are noticing something" to convince me.

But I'm serious. Any serious argument I will consider, anything that goes beyond the mere statement of a vague observation.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 25-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

You are actually right. Carnicom and Chemtrail Central used to be busy around 2000-2003. Now they are just ghost towns with the few remaining people either posting bizarre religious nonsense, or they just call each other disinfo agents every time they disagree with each other different chemtrail conspiracy belief.

reply to post by firepilot

None of you have ever proven the skies are any different. And it was such a drastic change, then why did the people who notice, only seem to think about it after visiting chemtrail websites?

I said, it's a fact that many people are seeing for themselves that the sky is different.

Even some skeptics here on ATS admit that the contrails have increased.

People don't get it from "visiting chemtrail websites" how would you know, you're just making that up.

They get it from looking up and seeing things not corresponding with their memories of how it used to be.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
[

I said, it's a fact that many people are seeing for themselves that the sky is different.

And many - as I contend more - are seeing for themselves that nothing has changed with contrail formation but their being increasingly sighted due to increasing airtraffic.

Even some skeptics here on ATS admit that the contrails have increased.

All the skeptics agree on that. And all the skeptics agree that the increase in sightings of contrails correlates exactly to the increase in airtraffic.






[edit on 25-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I'd say half the people in this thread are seeing that something is different.

I'm seeing something is different, family members see something is different, friends of mine see something is different.

You can deny it's chemtrails, but to deny that something is, in fact, different, is just not honest.

You know I can't come up with numbers of people that see this, just a straw man argument.

Whatever, you say every thing is the same as 10-15 years ago, fine.

A lot of people know you're wrong.

So its a complete coincidence, that people started believing in this bizarre chem nonsense around the exact same time people like Will Thomas and Clifford Carnicom started their websites? I mean persistence contrails have been around for a very very long time.

And if the memories of chemtrail believers are so uttterly reliable, then why do they keep reposting the same discredited photos over and over. Do they forget each time those photos get debunked?

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

All the skeptics agree on that. And all the skeptics agree that the increase in sightings of contrails correlates exactly to the increase in airtraffic.

As said before, I doubt that air traffic has grown as much as the phenomenon has grown in the 10-15 years.

And also, as said before, even if it's just all normal contrails, fact still remains that large parts of the sky are being hazed up, blocking out the sun.

It's a topic worth the attention anyway you look at it.

Originally posted by Point of No Return


A lot of people know you're wrong.

I think you're confusing the meaning of the word "knowing". Knowing per defintion would enable them to explain and demonstrate the existence of chemtrails in a convincing argument. They would systematize their observations and present valid evidence, not just refer to some random and obscure personal anecdotes.

Id it's real, it would be no problem to prove. Yet no chemtrailer will ever do real research himself. If I was convinced of such a nefarious plot, I'd be the first to do everything to find and present hard evidence. Not just vague feelings and random, unsystemized observations....

Why do I get the feeling that you arenot even trying to convince me? Seems to me all you have is "some people see something different" ... That's not proof of anything really....

Originally posted by firepilot
So its a complete coincidence, that people started believing in this bizarre chem nonsense around the exact same time people like Will Thomas and Clifford Carnicom started their websites? I mean persistence contrails have been around for a very very long time.

And if the memories of chemtrail believers are so uttterly reliable, then why do they keep reposting the same discredited photos over and over. Do they forget each time those photos get debunked?

Or did they start their website because it started to happen at that time, and people started seeing it at that time?

I'm talking about regular people that just see that things are different. I'm not talking about individual pics or vids.

I'm talking about a bright clear sky ending up all hazed up caused by plane trails.

reply to post by Point of No Return

Whatever, you say every thing is the same as 10-15 years ago, fine.

A lot of people know you're wrong.

No one here is saying that "everything is the same." I posted a graphic about 10 pages ago showing the reality of air traffic today. It is not the same as then.

So what?

More planes = more contrails.

What's frightening or threatening about that?

Being disingenuous about the "chemtrailers' " bleiefs will not save you. The whole ideology is based on a premise of a nefarious plot to harm people.

None of you yet have shown anything of the sort.

No, it is not the same as 10 - 15 years ago. What is?

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

Whatever, you say every thing is the same as 10-15 years ago, fine. A lot of people know you're wrong.

Can it be any more clear that you deliberately take my comment out of context?

Left out the clou.

I think you're confusing the meaning of the word "knowing". Knowing per defintion would enable them to explain and demonstrate the existence of chemtrails in a convincing argument. They would systematize their observations and present valid evidence, not just refer to some random and obscure personal anecdotes.

No, they know you are wrong when you say that the sky hasn't changed since 10-15 years ago.

That's what I said and you know it.

Originally posted by Point of No Return

No, they know you are wrong when you say that the sky hasn't changed since 10-15 years ago.

That's what I said and you know it.

That's a straw man. You yourself acknowledged that skeptics do not claim that nothing has changed.

As for the knowing part. If the knew, they could demonstrate. If they simply believe, they could only appeal. It seems clear to me what's the case here.

I didn't want to take your post out of context sorry. But nobody says nothing has changed. Airtraffic has increased dramatically, globalization and all.

Psst:

I have posted proof.

Undeniable proof of taxpayer funded studies documenting the cost effectiveness of applying atmospheric "sunscreen" vs. mandatory carbon emissions reductions.

The conclusions were evident: it's a helluva lot cheaper to add chemicals to aviation fuel and block the sun than to cap carbon emissions.

The next logical step would be real world in vivo experimentation. Then, if proven effective, full implementation to mitigate the climatic effects of fossil fuel pollution.