Chemtrail plane over NJ 11/14/10

Your first video is good.
water vapor needs a nuclei.

so says this video...
www.youtube.com...

LOL...that Belfort video is hilarious. Its the smallest room ever. Is there even an audience? JUst more crackpot theorists trying to come across as legit. I skimmed through it. As i thought, he offers no evidence. Just more desperate dot connecting.

Geee....you would have thought that a global conspiracy on this scale would garner a bigger audience.

Funny video. Thank you for sharing

...but you bit your own bait....because if ice/water needs particles to form into a cloud.....
(like in the video)
...then what's normally coming out of jet engines ??
....every jet engine ?

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
...but you bit your own bait....because if ice/water needs particles to form into a cloud.....
(like in the video)
...then what's normally coming out of jet engines ??
....every jet engine ?

Mate, you are wasting time. He's in the top 1% of the smartest people in the US. He can see the dots that mere mortals like you and me cannot!

reply to post by 3danimator

go ahead and ignore my calls for concrete evidence

Go ahead and call all you want.

Where did I say I had concrete evidence?

If you want to get legal, this would be considered a civil case.

Where the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.

Which means I only need to tip the scales in favor of my argument.

This is not a criminal murder trial where I need to prove beyond any doubt.

There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence and it begins in pre-trial with prima facie

en.wikipedia.org...

In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: At this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.

The answer is THE ABILITY to form clouds. But at 30k feet, when the conditions are right...they will form.
Sometimes never (no contrails)
Sometimes for seconds (slight contrails)
Sometimes for a minute
Sometimes for 3 minutes
Sometimes for 10 minutes
Sometimes for 3 hours or longer.

But for such a staunch argument, one would think you DID have concrete evidence.
Because you do not, should mean you would still be skeptical.....or am I not following you ?

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


Quit parroting your idols that brainwashed you.

You think I haven't been through this before with debunkers much more skilled and informed than you?

...just as in the video I posted....when conditions are right.....exhaust nuclei causes cloud.

reply to post by 3danimator

Funny video. Thank you for sharing

I thought you were leaving?

Decided to stick around and troll some more?

Or are you just here to be a cheerleader from the peanut gallery?

reply to post by EyeDontKnow

.exhaust nuclei causes cloud.

Yes , but what causes "persistent spreading contrails" ?

It's not atmospheric conditions alone. You need extra special condensation nuclei and a lot of them.

The point of the video, is to rebuff those who say "if it's cold enough, they should always make a contrail".
The video shows, that it only happens under certain conditions, and with added particles.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



I feel sorry for you. Your whole "fight" is a lie. And i have a feeling you know it, which is why you get so defensive. Deep down, you know you have no proof of the s**t you believe. Thats gotta suck.

And by the way, exasperating other debunkers into abandoning the argument isnt winning ;-)

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


It's the humidity.
Turns out, Antarctica is one of the driest places on earth.
...and when the humidity of the tea example is preformed....that is the key.

...but there are years of studies that acknowledge persistent contrails....and none that deny it.
....long before "chemtrails" were even thought of.

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


No, it's not just the humidity.

It's more importantly the extra hygroscopic material combined with the humidity.

reply to post by EyeDontKnow

years of studies that acknowledge persistent contrails.

No there isn't, there is always only 1 study that you debunkers produce regarding persistent contrails.

I have already gone over it many times on here.

Yes, we agree.
But...
I say it's the exhaust soot,
where you say it's some unknown substance.
....either of which would cause such a reaction.
So who does the normal person believe....
the KNOWN particles
or your UNKNOWN particles
....that can create a lasting cloud ?

There are many, spanning over 50 years or earlier.
scholar.google.com...

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


It doesn't have to be unknown chemicals.

You see it actually only has to be an intentional creation.

This is done by increasing the engines fuel/air ratio making it run just slightly richer and less efficient. Then by applying the wings flaps it slows air speed.

This technique allows for more exhaust to accumulate per foot than normal.

Yes, it can all be the same material as a normal contrail. Just a lot more of it intentionally created.