It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have These Chemtrail Formations Been Appearing In Your City Lately?

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   


Are you intimately aware of the chemical makeup of every fuel load you've used in your 40 years of flying? Do you think it's a possible mechanism for chemtrails? Plausible even? Also, as rightly pointed out by other posters... explaining (repeatedly) why persistant contrails exist isn't a valid argument against the existence of chemtrails. That goes for you too Oz. You need a better argument.


Do you have any evidence, or do you just have speculation?

How would TET make big trails behind an airplane? And why can contrails not persist, and where did you read that?




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Do you have any evidence, or do you just have speculation?



I'm speculating. I was asking weedwhacker if he thought my theory was possible given his flying experience.

I'm not closed to the idea of chemtrails because western governments have admitted spraying the skies with all sorts in the past, so it's hard to dismiss the idea that it could happen again, possibly on a much larger scale. One example...



I've also seen (and photographed) some pretty crazy looking skies.


Originally posted by firepilot

How would TET make big trails behind an airplane? And why can contrails not persist, and where did you read that?



I didn't say TEL had anything to do with trails of any kind, I was using it as an example to show that burning fuels (and additives) have previously caused measurable ecologic damage.


en.wikipedia.org...

For the entire U.S. population, during and after the TEL phaseout, the mean blood lead level dropped from 13 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991.[7] The U.S. Centers for Disease Control considered blood lead levels "elevated" when they were above 10 μg/dL. Lead exposure affects the intelligence quotient (IQ) such that a blood lead level of 30 μg/dL is associated with a 6.9-point reduction of IQ, with most reduction (3.9 points) occurring below 10 μg/dL.[8]



Lots of chemtrailers talk about abnormally high aluminium and boron levels. Past experience with TEL shows that fuel additives would be a possible method of distributing metals into the environment without needing armies of conspirators.

My point is that the only anti-chemtrail arguments I've ever heard are.... a) persistent contrails, followed by explanations of how they form and b) the logistical arguments.

I'm just trying to point out that neither of those make chemtrails impossible.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by eightfold

Originally posted by firepilot

Do you have any evidence, or do you just have speculation?

...I'm just trying to point out that neither of those make chemtrails impossible.


Well -- yeah. It is possible to spray chemicals from a plane. However, the basic argument here is whether or not the very presence of persistent trails in the sky -- lasting for hours and stretching from horizon to horizon -- are ALWAYS chemtrails.

People are using the existence of persistent trails as proof that chemical spraying is happening, and every persistent trail is a CHEMtrail.

I'm saying that's not true. Normal water vapor CONtrails can in fact be persistent, and the conditions under which they can persist is not uncommon whatsoever. I'm saying that the existence of persistent trails is NOT in of itself proof of chemtrails.

If people are to present evidence that chemical spraying from airplanes is a wide-spread and common occurrence, then they need more evidence other "but just look at that persistent trail". The presence of persistent trails are meaningless evidence of chemtrails, since they are a common form of water vapor contrails. Take away that supposed visual "evidence" (which I say is not evidence at all), and the argument that TPTB are engaged in a widespread spaying campaign cannot stand on its own.

And the fact that they "can" spray chemicals from planes is not enough. People "can" do a lot of things; that doesn't mean those things are done on a regular basis.


edit on 12/20/2010 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by eightfold
 


Well, firstly....you mentioned TEL (commonly referred to as the "lead") in "leaded" gasoline (petrol).

And, you're right....MOST aviation fuel that is a gasoline (petrol) type fuel still contains TEL.
In small piston-powered airplanes. Every student pilot learns about the various grades of fuel, how to recognize them (colored dyes) and what to use in the particular airplane they fly. Just as your auto recommends, in some cases, a higher octane gasoline ("premium" in the U.S.), depending on engine design.

It was many years back....late 70s/early 80s that the first "unleaded" aviation gasoline (petrol) was introduced for small airplanes...."100LL". Dyed blue, for recognition. Grade "80" octane is pinkish/red, and the "premium". "100/130" is green. This is easy to research of course...I'm just going from memory here, though. Automobile gasoline began to change at about the same time, in the States, as "unleaded" was introduced. Big controversy, since it cost a few pennies more ( at a time when it was about $.055 per gallon!!
). BTW, the "unleaded" introduction co-incided with the "catalytic converter" device, to minimize exhaust pollution...AND, if I recall, the State of California was unique in pioneering its requirement, in-state. Now, they're ubiquitous.....

BUT....jet turbine engines do not burn gasoline/petrol!! "Jet-A" is derived from forms of kerosene. Has lower volatility (flash point) than gasoline, and chemically different in other ways too.


It's the only plausible mechanism I can think of for the "mass spraying" that chemtrail advocates shout about on ATS all the time, and it would place 'blame' on the oil companies and refineries.


Really? You should, then, do some research into the quality control requirements imposed by regulations, on aviation fuels...gasoline-based AND kerosene-based. They are quite stringent, and well-controlled/monitored.

BTW...in an airplane piston engine, it IS possible to use automotive gasoline. But, of course, it is against FAA regulations (and naturally, other nations' aviation governing agencies); any violators caught doing so are subject to penalties, and the airplane engine/airframe combination involved could have its airworthiness revoked, too.

Pointing out the "banning" of TEL in auto gasoline is not "news" to anyone....and the remaining TEL in aviation gasoline is minor, in comparison. We're talking relative numbers of vehicles, here....and the overall contribution to air pollution from each category. Small airplanes are very, very minor, in terms of vehicle numbers, and hours of operation...compared to automobiles.


Are you intimately aware of the chemical makeup of every fuel load you've used in your 40 years of flying?


I don't have to be, because as I said, I am aware of the stringent regulations that govern their refinement, and distribution.


Do you think it's a possible mechanism for chemtrails? Plausible even?


NO.


edit on 20 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Thank you for the lesson in fuels. I've done a fair bit of reading about them and nothing I've found excludes the theory I proposed. There are already a multitude of additives in all sorts of aviation fuels.


wiki
The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:[6][7]
....


In reply to everything you said about TEL... I mentioned it only as an example that fuel additives have previously resulted in mass poisoning and massive soil contamination. It shows the mechanism I suggested is possible - you can (very efficiently) add particulates and poisons to the atmosphere by burning fuels.

Can we stop talking about TEL now? I never suggested it had *anything* to do with chemtrails - I was quite explicit about why I brought it up.




BUT....jet turbine engines do not burn gasoline/petrol!! "Jet-A" is derived from forms of kerosene. Has lower volatility (flash point) than gasoline, and chemically different in other ways too.



I said 'aviation' fuel for a reason, I'm aware there are many different types for different engines. The fact they're not burning petrol is irrelevant.... I wasn't suggesting TEL had anything to do with chemtrails (how many times now?
)


You should, then, do some research into the quality control requirements imposed by regulations, on aviation fuels...gasoline-based AND kerosene-based. They are quite stringent, and well-controlled/monitored.



I did and have. The tests only look for certain anomalies (water content etc) and hydrocarbon mixtures - the type of fuel involved is irrelevant. It wouldn't be difficult to add a chemical additive to the fuel that would pass the tests.

Toxicology reports in autopsies don't test for every chemical under the sun... there have been numerous incidents of mass water poisonings despite very stringent controls and tests... there have been repeated incidents of benzene contamination in soft drinks...

My point is that *tests are chemical specific* - there isn't a magic *this complies with the rules* test, so if they aren't testing for it they wouldn't necessarily know it's there.

I'd suggest you do some research into the tests (and maybe formally study chemistry for two years like I did) and you'll see what I mean.



I don't have to be [aware of the chemical makeup for the fuel], because as I said, I am aware of the stringent regulations that govern their refinement, and distribution.



So logically you must accept that *IF* there is a chemtrail conspiracy pilots and airlines wouldn't have to be in on it?

You rely on others to deal with & test fuels,....I think I've demonstrated that the tests wouldn't necessarily find anything... and that burning fuel is a proven method of adding particulates to the atmosphere and getting chemicals into the environment. What isn't plausible?


Do you think it's a possible mechanism for chemtrails? Plausible even?

NO.


Why not? Nothing you've said proves otherwise.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Well -- yeah. It is possible to spray chemicals from a plane. However, the basic argument here is whether or not the very presence of persistent trails in the sky -- lasting for hours and stretching from horizon to horizon -- are ALWAYS chemtrails.

People are using the existence of persistent trails as proof that chemical spraying is happening, and every persistent trail is a CHEMtrail.



I accept that persistent contrails exist, I've never said otherwise. But, unlike so many on here on both sides of the argument, I don't think that they're mutually exclusive. You can have both and it's idiotic to assume otherwise.

I can't dismiss chemtrails for some very simple reasons....

1. Governments have sprayed all sorts on the public before. My point is that TPTB are capable of organising such a conspiracy and keeping it secret until they decide otherwise. See the video above for one example.

2. Burning fuel mixtures with additives is a valid method of getting chemicals into the atmosphere and causing mass contamination, without involving masses of people in a giant conspiracy.

3. The ONLY two reasonable arguments against them don't stack up. Persistant trails (Oz's favourite) & 'OMFG too many people involved' (the pilots favourite) have huge and obvious holes in them.

4. I've seen some *really* crazy skies and the 'air corridor' arguments don't work. Massive checkerboard grids and crosses in the sky? Hmmm.



And the fact that they "can" spray chemicals from planes is not enough. People "can" do a lot of things; that doesn't mean those things are done on a regular basis.


They *have* done it tho repeatedly. Logically I don't see how you can dismiss it.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
So tell me as a professional pilot, how when you have hundreds of airplanes aloft at once, and sometimes down jetways ,as you call air corridors, would not make the patterns you see at times?

Based on the aerial maps you have studied, and your knowledge of ATC procedures, what conclusion did you come up with? Because I am sure you did look at high altitude jet airways charts..

Do you know something that EVERY pilot out there does not? There are tens of thousands of jet pilots out there, what is it that you know, that they do not?

And tell us, how does your TEL (I mistakenly put TET) make large trails??



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by eightfold
 


Your reply:


.... fuels. I've done a fair bit of reading about them and nothing I've found excludes the theory I proposed.


Yet, you specifically cited the Wiki article, that clearly defines what IS added tothe fuels?? HOW does that "fit" into your "theory"?


There are already a multitude of additives in all sorts of aviation fuels.


Again...you read the articles on the additives, their nature, and what their functions are. Did you think to consider the reasons for the various additives in the fuel for storage and handling reasons; and then, what would happen to those additives during the process of combustion...once they are delivered to the engine for burning??

Would they be destroyed in the intense heat of combustion? Do you know how hot it gets?



It wouldn't be difficult to add a chemical additive to the fuel that would pass the tests.


And, you know this how, exactly??

Further, to follow this reasoning...wouldn't you think that a person/group who were intent on "catching" the "evildoers" would think to grab some samples of jet fuel, and test them? Ever wonder why NO ONE of the "chemtrail" claimers has ever come forward with their "smoking gun" proof from that source?



Toxicology reports in autopsies don't test for every chemical under the sun... there have been numerous incidents of mass water poisonings despite very stringent controls and tests... there have been repeated incidents of benzene contamination in soft drinks...


Well...be that as it may, absent sources and statistics....irrelevant. BUT, it does do one thing....shows that IF some sort of nefarious "plot" were afoot, then THOSE means of introducing "poisons" to the populace are far more effective than so-called "chemtrails"...



Nothing you've said proves otherwise.


Circular.

Nothing you've "said" proves anything. Burden is NOT on "proving a negative"...it's finding evidence to substantiate a "theory".....



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   


I did and have. The tests only look for certain anomalies (water content etc) and hydrocarbon mixtures - the type of fuel involved is irrelevant. It wouldn't be difficult to add a chemical additive to the fuel that would pass the tests.


okay, just show us evidence that this has happened. I mean anyone can speculate on anything and believe it until its proved otherwise. But then thats why each chemtrail believer has their own personal version of chemtrails, and many of them debunk each other.

With so many versions of the chemtrail conspiracy, which ones are correct and which are incorrect?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
So tell me as a professional pilot, how when you have hundreds of airplanes aloft at once, and sometimes down jetways ,as you call air corridors, would not make the patterns you see at times?


In the UK the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) calls them "air corridors & routes." I never said or implied I was a professional pilot, I was putting forward an idea I had that nobodies been able to convincingly refute yet. Your tone is overwhelmingly sarcastic, which doesn't really have any place here imo.


Based on the aerial maps you have studied, and your knowledge of ATC procedures, what conclusion did you come up with? Because I am sure you did look at high altitude jet airways charts..


I did. I have the VFR terminal charts for my local airport which covers most of the area around where I live. I've had them for about a year (they were *just* out of date when I got them).

In the area I live aircraft are stacked to the south east of my house, and the defined "corridors" only run North/South, not East/West. The patterns I've seen in the sky aren't explainable by persistant trails from normal aircraft - it would require many aircraft to fly East/West across what is effectively a motorway in a sky.

The patterns I've seen and photographed don't make sense, that's all I'm saying. I'm also not an idiot and I checked before coming to that conclusion.


Do you know something that EVERY pilot out there does not? There are tens of thousands of jet pilots out there, what is it that you know, that they do not?


My point is that the pilots don't need to be involved at all.


And tell us, how does your TEL (I mistakenly put TET) make large trails??


I've got a better question for you.... please show me where I said TEL had anything at all to do with trails? If you read all the words I've written you'll understand what I was saying about TEL. It's incredibly rude for you to reply to my post without properly reading what I said.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   


I did. I have the VFR terminal charts for my local airport which covers most of the area around where I live. I've had them for about a year (they were *just* out of date when I got them).


VFR terminal area charts have nothing to do with High Altitude jetways. You seriously were trying to figure out what high altitude jets under IFR flight plans, and enroute, are doing with a VFR terminal area chart?

And yes I would guess there are north south routes too, and then more and more traffic is going off airway too with enroute GPS being approved often.

I still want to know what is it that you know, that tens of thousands of professional pilots are missing out on

edit on 20-12-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)




I've got a better question for you.... please show me where I said TEL had anything at all to do with trails? If you read all the words I've written you'll understand what I was saying about TEL. It's incredibly rude for you to reply to my post without properly reading what I said.


Wait, am I missing something. Isnt this whole topic about chemtrails and their existence? You are bringing up fuel additives in a thread about chemtrails, so it must be germaine to the topic.
edit on 20-12-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Google & a bit of studying of chemistry is the way forward regarding chemical testing. I'm not going to go into it in detail here because there's no point. My basic point is simple tho - (using TEL as an example) it's possible to combust fuel/additive mixtures and massively contaminate the environment and the people in it. That surely a simple and easy to understand point?

The regulations and testing regimes are irrelevant once you understand that it's quite difficult to test for generic 'impurities' in a fuel - the tests look for specific contaminants that are likely to be there based on the processes the fuel has gone through. Additives could be added en masse while the fuel's being manufactured and you'd never know without a full lab chemical analysis.

Very simply, I'm proposing a hypothesis. I'm not saying "OMFG CHEMTRAILS EXIST AND THIS IS WHY." I'm trying (and failing) to have a rational (but speculative) conversation about how a hypothetical chemtrail conspiracy would work in practice. I'm saying that your "pilot involvement" and "fuel testing & regulation" arguments aren't logical or valid and I've explained why.

I've also explained why I sit on the fence with the chemtrail theories. Neither sides argument is convincing to me, but I've seen some crazy skies that none of the 'persistent contrail' crowd can convincingly explain.

I'm also happy to agree to disagree, but (respectfully) your arguments don't stack up. I understand your 'burden of proof' point, but I'm speculating, I'm not trying to prove anything.

As for proof - you're far better placed to get samples (the air inside suspect trails and the fuel that made them) than I am, surely? Pilots like yourself could put this argument to bed pretty easily.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Yes, I have a degree in Environmental Science, with lots of coursework in chemistry and biology, in addition to my credentials as a professional pilot. And science was my career before becoming a pilot, and I have worked in weather research missions as a pilot.

But so far all you have to offer is speculation, and speculation is not evidence of anything other than your imagination. You have not offered proof of anything, and if these fuel additives you have no evidence for may not even cause these "chemtrails" to begin with, then what exactly are you getting at? That there is some other secret poisoning program separate from whatever makes big trails?

A hypothesis should at least have some fact that it starts with. If your theory actually just starts with only speculation from the very beginning, then its not very sound.

All you are offering, is just your own theory of things . Maybe to you its fuel additives. To another chemtrail believer, its metal dumped into the engine. For others, its secretly rigged airliners that spray out their static wicks. To others, its reptilian shapeshifters flying orbs that are battling the sylphs.

Just give us some kind of evidence that you base your speculation from




edit on 20-12-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
VFR terminal area charts have nothing to do with High Altitude jetways. You seriously were trying to figure out what high altitude jets under IFR flight plans, and enroute, are doing with a VFR terminal area chart?


Nope. I know where the high altitude jetways are over my area via the joys of the internet, I didn't need charts for that. I got VFR terminal charts because I thought it was possible the patterns I've seen could be explained by stacking over my local airport, but sadly not.



And yes I would guess there are north south routes too, and then more and more traffic is going off airway too with enroute GPS being approved often.


Would that traffic be permitted to fly at 90 degrees to the very busy central England North/South routes, less that 10 miles from a *very* busy airport?



I still want to know what is it that you know, that tens of thousands of professional pilots are missing out on


As I've already explained, by modifying the fuel the pilots don't need to be involved.



Wait, am I missing something. Isnt this whole topic about chemtrails and their existence? You are bringing up fuel additives in a thread about chemtrails, so it must be germaine to the topic.


Yes, you are missing something. See my many replies above that explain exactly why I brought up fuel additives (and TEL in particular). I've answered that question so many times now.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   


Would that traffic be permitted to fly at 90 degrees to the very busy central England North/South routes, less that 10 miles from a *very* busy airport?


Sure...why not? I have flown right over DFW in a prop plane before.

And obviously if you saw traffic at that place, it was being permitted. There can not be secret jet airplanes up there not talking to anyone. So yes, you just answered your own question.

I am pretty sure the ATC controllers know what they are doing. And also enroute VOR stations are often located on an airport.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Yes, I have a degree in Environmental Science, with lots of coursework in chemistry and biology, in addition to my credentials as a professional pilot. And science was my career before becoming a pilot, and I have worked in weather research missions as a pilot.


You understand what a hypothesis is then?



But so far all you have to offer is speculation, and speculation is not evidence of anything other than your imagination.

A hypothesis should at least have some fact that it starts with. If your theory actually just starts with only speculation from the very beginning, then its not very sound.


I was hypothesising, which is a completely valid thing to do. All new theories start with a guess, ask Richard Feynman. My theory makes some assumptions but they're all testable - that's kind of what I was starting to do here.

I took the core arguments against chemtrails and came up with possible (even plausible?) arguments against them that are readily testable. My point is that NEITHER SIDE of the chemtrail debate can prove anything either way, but that the core points made by the 'no chemtrails' crowd don't add up and don't explain the crazy skies I've seen.

As I said in my first post in this thread - if you're going to argue against chemtrails you need to get a better argument.



All you are offering, is just your own theory of things . Maybe to you its fuel additives. To another chemtrail believer, its metal dumped into the engine. For others, its secretly rigged airliners that spray out their static wicks. To others, its reptilian shapeshifters flying orbs that are battling the sylphs. Just give us some kind of evidence that you base your speculation from.


To me it could be any number of things or nothing at all. I've backed my theory with examples of how it would be possible, and I've been quite clear I was hypothesising and trying to see what some pilots would think. Thanks for your input.






edit on 20-12-2010 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Well, would it not make more sense to start with evidence, facts, and proof first, and then work from there? Because since chemtrail believers do not do that, that is why its actually just more of a catch-all of any number of ideas, rather than any coherent conspiracy.

Its just turned into a big free for all of imagination, with each person believing whatever it is, with some really looney versions involving space aliens, invisible airplanes, viruses, etc.

You can see for yourself that chemtrail believers have zero knowledge of aviation and meterology, and really make no effort to learn more about it. They keep embarrasing themselves anytime they ever try to make a comment about aviation and metereology.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Well, would it not make more sense to start with evidence, facts, and proof first, and then work from there?


That's what I did.



Because since chemtrail believers do not do that, that is why its actually just more of a catch-all of any number of ideas, rather than any coherent conspiracy.


The core issue - unexplainable, weird cloud formations around the world - is pretty consistent in my view. Persistent contrails don't explain everything I've seen with my own eyes, never mind some of the time lapse videos and photographs others have taken. ATS is full of them.



Its just turned into a big free for all of imagination, with each person believing whatever it is, with some really looney versions involving space aliens, invisible airplanes, viruses, etc.


I don't subscribe to any bizarre theories and I have no idea what it is I've seen - that's what I'm trying to figure out. The only person mentioning aliens, viruses etc here is yourself.

Very simply, I've seen stuff I can't explain, nobody else has been able to explain it, so I've started investigating and hypothesising. It's how people figure things out.

You seem to be suggesting I should just accept it's persistent trails without checking & satisfying myself?



You can see for yourself that chemtrail believers have zero knowledge of aviation and meterology, and really make no effort to learn more about it. They keep embarrasing themselves anytime they ever try to make a comment about aviation and metereology.


That's far from fair and I disagree. It also implies you have a bit of a superiority complex. I don't think I've embarrassed myself - I've done as suggested by various pilots and weathermen on here... I've researched this on and off over the last year. When I've been unsure of something I've asked or dug till I've found out.

What I've suggested is POSSIBLE. I'm not saying it's happening, but it's an idea that sort of explains what I've seen and rules out the core anti-chemtrails arguments. You seem to be arguing with the fact I've tried to figure it out - you've not refuted *anything* I've suggested, so why are you still here?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
We should also note that all the Chemtrail debunkers know all about the individual Chemtrailers and there studies of knowledge and how none of us have the slightest clue about meteorology and aviation. (..heavy sarcasm implied)

It's pretty obvious these threads get flooded with disinfo agents and trolls. The more these people want to drill into your head that Chemtrails are thoughts of crazy folk the more it proves they exist.
Please, I look forward to the replies of taking quotes out of context and picking them apart.....signs of desperation.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
We should also note that all the Chemtrail debunkers know all about the individual Chemtrailers and there studies of knowledge and how none of us have the slightest clue about meteorology and aviation. (..heavy sarcasm implied)

It's pretty obvious these threads get flooded with disinfo agents and trolls. The more these people want to drill into your head that Chemtrails are thoughts of crazy folk the more it proves they exist.
Please, I look forward to the replies of taking quotes out of context and picking them apart.....signs of desperation.


Yes, just as you saw in the other threads, when a chemmie opens their mouth about airplanes, hilarity often ensues with their wacky zany comments! I have seen chemtrailer claim jet engines are running with dirty gasoline, or with rich mixtures, or asking how it possibly be cold at 35,000 ft in the summer, or asking how can ice crystals persist, etc etc etc.

I have challenged them time and time again to find any faults with my statements about aviation and meteorology, and they never do. Its us debunkers who have to correct them, but correcting them does not earn any thanks, it just leads to accusations of being paid government agents.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join