Shocking Annoucment about Chemtrails on MSM

reply to post by Chadwickus


I didn't miss anything. I was the one who posted the disclaimer.

Did you read my comment at the bottom?

Originally posted by ThirdRock69

So, by your "basic logic" all operations and actions under taken by the USAF are publicly announced US policy?

reply to post by ThirdRock69


When it's fictional and written by students, yes.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by atomsapple

 

COME on!!! Be real:

I'm not on a side here, all I know is that if our air is intentionally being sprayed in order to change our climate, it's not public knowledge yet.

No, the "air" is not being "intentionally" sprayed!!!

I mean.....THINK!!! Be rational.

Human_Alien believes South Florida is being sprayed daily (by "chemtrails", no doubt). By saying "I'm not on a side here" I was referencing a list of members he made- me included- a few pages back of assumed debunkers/disbelievers of "chemtrails". Basically a warning to anyone reading this thread to ignore anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Based on my current knowledge, I can not prove that "chemtrails" do or do not exist. Please re-read the comment of mine you quoted. It clearly say's "if"... "...IF our air is being intentionally sprayed... it's not public knowledge yet." There's a hell of a lot of things happening out there that the public doesn't have proof of yet.

I am real. I am rational. I think... a lot. That's why if I can't personally prove something I don't lay claim to it. I read, I listen, and I don't claim to know anything I don't actually know.

I believe in naturally occuring global climate change and fluctuations. I do not believe in the term "global warning", or it's use to describe natural climate changes. I enjoy environmental science, weather study and weather patterns. I sure hope there's not some programs in place or in planning that are going to muck up the Earth more than it is- I really like our planet. Sadly, there are some very unpredictible people out there, and some of them are in power. ($$$$$$)

I'm 98% sure "chemtrails" don't exist, but I can't PROVE it. In my opinion, people who think "chemtrails" exist- especially if they think they're seeing it DAILY, should report it in order to bring attention to the matter and do some more homework before going around telling everyone they ARE "chemtrails". Thank you for allowing me my personal opinion.

reply to post by atomsapple


Yes.

"chemtrails" as defined by this OP, do not exist.

Period.

This woman (the OP) is deluded.

Period.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Glassbender777

 

It's not just me. There are many chemtrail blogs springing up in Florida. We all can't be going insane or being misguided all at the same time. It doesn't work that way. And try as they will...people who stalk my threads in an attempt to derail the topic are purely entertainment and circus clowns.

And just for the record, I do not nor will I assume these are chemicals. I only refer to them as aerosol spraying.

I'm seriously not trying to debunk your theory or your thread
You definitely called them chemtrails.
See your quote in my next post.

Those Florida bloggers would be the perfect people to help you bring this to the public eye.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies).

This document is published and written by the USAF.

Your argument

sure.....

The only reference there that might support such a conclusion is to the "Owning het weather" paper from the 1990's - which is well known as NOT being US policy at all - and hence the statement that "This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement." is debunked.

ROTFLMFAO

csat.au.af.mil...

Disclaimer

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.

So, by your "basic logic" all operations and actions under taken by the USAF are publicly announced US policy?

how on earth do you get that?

This document is the only one in "Case Orange" that has anything to to do with their stated claim that the US wants to control the weather by 2025 - they present nothing else as evidence - and they apparently want to be taken seriously, so they have actually included references.

By my "basic logic", this is their evidence, and it is fiction - thank your for quoting the bit where it says that it is fiction - as I have highlighted.

So "Case Orange" has used fiction to claim that the USA has a stated aim of controlling the weather.

Sorry if that is too much for you....

Originally posted by Human_Alien
typing something like this, my life will be in some sort of danger. They'll probably put me down on their terrorist list and make my life miserable. Not that these chemtrails aren't doing that already..........

There it is. You do call them "chemtrails". The danger here is that you are choosing to spread information you can not prove.

Go prove it. Make some waves...

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Again you demonstrate ignorance of basic logic.

No you demonstrate ignorance of advanced logic

I'm not wasting my time with you silly circular arguments.

Your points are just another opinion. Which are based on semantics and word play. You have not "debunked" anything. You have not proven anything to be false. You can keep saying it like a child over and over or you can admit that ...IT IS JUST YOUR OPINION......... an ignorant one at that.

And there you have it people - a refusal to accept hat anything other than his own conclusion can be factual.

Repeated statements that my argument is circular by no effort to show how or why.

No effort to show how else my argument might be in error - no effort to demonstrate this "Advanced logic".

The ATS version of sticking his his fingers into his ears and shouting "la la la la" so he doesn't' have to fact facts.

Sucks to be unable to cope with thinking that he's been taken for a hoax I guess.

Very sad.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Alchemst7

 

I think a fine line needs to be drawn as to what is being interpreted as chem trails. From what I inderstand it as, the actuall exhaust of the jet engine has higher levels of sulfur dioxide which is intently increased to creat the little mirrors as the video is explaining to help reflect the sun light. The sulfur dioxide in the exhaust lingers in the atmosphere for up to 2 years, thats why the con/chem trail seems like it is blanketing the sky.

I see only one problem with that statement:
You present it as if it is actually happening, yet your source is only a possible proposal.

This is from YOUR source. You must have missed:

As for the sulfur in fuel option, current jet fuel sulfur levels are around 400ppm, mostly due to the removal of sulfur by use of hydroprocessing to meet other parts of the jet fuel specification or the fact that low sulfur feedstock is available (27-29). Jet aircraft have a specification limit of 3000ppm in their fuel in the U.S. and similar elsewhere, so the level could be increased by a factor of almost 8 without any modification to the specifications (30).

The refiners would have to reformulate the fuel, but ironically, since their recent problems have largely been how to remove sulfur, this would require modifying their refining process to add more, a job that might take 5 years or so to complete (31, 32) or reverse, locking in the strategy. Thus, if this strategy were to be adopted, it would have to be continued for some time, even if the results were unacceptable.

Effects of the higher sulfur content on corrosion of turbine blades and other engine parts would need to be understood. Also, since jets only fly in the lower stratosphere about 80% of the time (not sure if time is equivalent to fuel usage and 80% is my estimate), consideration would have to be given to environmental impacts during the takeoff and landing phases as well as to how much sulfur is actually burned while the aircraft are in the stratosphere.

The above is certainly NOT A CONFIRMATION!

The other theory out there is that there are other metalic particles being added to jet fuel for a dual purpose. For instance Stadis-450 is added to jet fuel as a static dissipator. This additive ingredients is a trade secret and is not disclosed but is assumed to contain either barium salts or alluminum or thorium oxides.

Not quite true. Here is the Safety Data Sheet for "Stadis-450". There are only two "trade secret" ingredients involved:
1) A polymer containing sulpher

2) A polymer containing nitrogen

As you may have noticed, "barium salts or alluminum or thorium oxides" are NOT among the ingredients.

There are many additives added to jet fuels which can explain the con/chem trails coming from the jets

Then what are they? As for me, I'm going with:
Water vapor produced by the combustion process!

See ya,
Milt

If Im reading this right, dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid or similar compounds like stadis 450 does contain barium salt. epa.gov

Table 1. CAS Numbers and Descriptions of Dinonylnaphthalene Category Members
CAS Number
CAS Number Description
63512-64-1
Diisononylnaphthalene (a.k.a. dinonylnaphthalene)
25322-17-2
Dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid
25619-56-1
Dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt
57855-77-3
Dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, calcium salt

Now Im not sure exactly which compound they are adding to the jet fuel but knowing there is a Dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid with barium salts is questionable.

second acording to the Geoengineering site I gave Geo Engineer
This option involves increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20,000 planes today) from 0.04% to 0.6 and increasing to 0.9% by 2050. Sulfur dioxide gas is emitted in the turbine exhaust and ideally, nearly all of it converted to sulfuric acid gas and then to sulfuric acid aerosol. The sulfuric acid aerosol floats around in the stratosphere for 1-2 years and reflects sunlight. The level in jet fuel is raised each year to match increased greenhouse gas emissions.

They claim the sulfur content of jet fuel is at .04%. Is this before or after Dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid is added to the jett fuel?

I'm still looking for a current Jet engine emissions report on how much sulfur with Dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid added.

another interesting find:
Aircraft sulfur emissions and the formation of visible contrails

and
contrail formation and impact on aerosol

question???
What defines a contrail verses a chemtrail? Are the additives thats added to jet fuel which increases jet emissions creating plumes be considered a chemtrail?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

And there you have it people - a refusal to accept hat anything other than his own conclusion can be factual.

There you have it people?



Excuse me for taking a break from your ridiculous opinions and eating dinner.

I'm not "on the clock".

Personally I feel you provided nothing factual so why should I accept your biased opinion as fact?

It would make no sense at all to accept your points as debunking.

First, you used the premise and conclusion argument. Completely leaving out the entire body of evidence that is in the paper itself. Clearly you have never even read the paper. You refer to someone else who has given you a manual on bullet points to attack the document with. But you completely avoid the actual document and focus on the opening and closing statements only. This is your idea of satisfactory debunking.

Repeatedly, I asked you to be specific and you avoided that but your few chosen bullet points that did a piss poor job at "debunking". I really don't even see the need to rebut your opinions. If people choose to read the document they will see the logic and facts. Your only option is to try and convince people to not read the document. So you bash the authors and create a false argument based on two short statements a couple sentences long.

The Case Orange Report is a 300 page document. You chose about six sentences to twist around and then called it debunked. Like I said before, I'm not here to waste time talking semantics with you.

THERE YOU HAVE IT

Originally posted by atomsapple

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Glassbender777

 

It's not just me. There are many chemtrail blogs springing up in Florida. We all can't be going insane or being misguided all at the same time. It doesn't work that way. And try as they will...people who stalk my threads in an attempt to derail the topic are purely entertainment and circus clowns.

And just for the record, I do not nor will I assume these are chemicals. I only refer to them as aerosol spraying.

I'm seriously not trying to debunk your theory or your thread
You definitely called them chemtrails.
See your quote in my next post.

Those Florida bloggers would be the perfect people to help you bring this to the public eye.

I called them chemtrails because THEY call them chemtrails and I was referring to THEM.

Let's say I don't believe in ghosts but I need to convey a movie to my friend. Should I NOT call it Ghost-busters just because of my beliefs?
Same difference.
They are called Chemtrail blogs. I didn't name 'em. I am merely referring to them.


Ya know what? You're just an idiotic irritant at this point. And I laugh.

reply to post by ThirdRock69

Ok. How about this fine bit of nonsense which tries to add HAARP to the mix.

When transmitting in the VLF or ELF frequency range the ionosphere is sliced about in the same way of a space shuttle entering or leaving the atmosphere, leaving an incision at the point of impact. Due to the nature of propagation of VLF and ELF-waves these signals cause streams of particles to rain down beyond the horizon far from the transmitter and in the outermost regions of the atmosphere with very little loss of signal, altering the motion of free electrons and causing electronic rain that influence weather patterns.

Gobbledegook.

In all that there is one factual statement, sort of. The injection of VLF waves into the magnetosphere can cause ions and electrons present in the magnetosphere to be pulled earthward at the poles. The ionosphere is not sliced, no incision is left. Solar activity causes the same thing to happen. So does lightning.

If you can explain what a "stream of particles" has to do with "very little loss of signal" I would appreciate it.

"Electronic rain that influence weather patterns?" What? Electronic rain? Do the aurora affect weather? Because that's what it's talking about.

The entire report reads like a Sorcha Faal story. A few verifiable facts to make the nonsense sound reasonable for those who don't pay attention. It even uses that fraud Nick Begich as a source.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
It's not shocking to those of us who have witnessed this on a daily basis and fought tooth and nail with all the naysayers and debunkers on these threads.

They are MESSING with our weather without our permission. And usually when they experiment to the degree that they do, they usually regret it afterwards. Look at all the pharmaceuticals that get recalled after a while.

So if you're wondering where the bees went and why birds are chirping at night and why our vegetation looks sickly and why WE feel like crap well, here it is folks.

www.youtube.com...#!

Might I suggest Jim Phelps for your research if you haven't already been told to go there.... Phelps - Chemtrail pdf documentwww.lightwatcher.com...

reply to post by mrgregbusybee

Jim Phelps was the lead character in the TV series Mission Impossible.
Please show evidence (from anyone other than "Jim Phelps") that "Jim Phelps" exists, much less that:

Jim Phelps is the inventor of the HAARP project, the discover that the Earth's magnetic field is an MHD generator, the discover of the critical factors of fluoide's on health, the inventor for the titanium method to control fluoride G-proteins, the inventor of the PB method to block G-protein binding sites, the inventor for special formulation for J-8 jet fuels, the inventor of the Ba and Ti chemtrail methods, the inventor of the Star War's Excalibur / Tungusga weapon, and many other critical national security projects.

www.lightwatcher.com...

What? He didn't invent sliced bread too? This is nothing but more made up crap.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
[

The Case Orange Report is a 300 page document. You chose about six sentences to twist around and then called it debunked. Like I said before, I'm not here to waste time talking semantics with you.

THERE YOU HAVE IT

The conclusions are not 300 pages long - the conclusions are short and to the point and unsupported by their own evidence.

Highlighting 2 of them is called "using examples".....it's not an uncommon technique for pointing things out

Look...I am really, really sorry that you have to automatically believe everything hat supports the existence of the chemtrail hoax - it must be hell to think that the very air you breathe is poisoning you in a deliberate attempt to achieve something evil.

But that's not my fault.

reply to post by Phage


What the hell is going on here? Shift change? You get demoted to the swing shift now? Are you the reinforcements or what? Who's gonna clock in next?

I was having a debate with ATG. Why are you all of a sudden jumping in his place? I'm not here to argue with you or anybody else about so called gobbledeegook.

If you want put away your little debunker guide book and cheat sheet cliff notes.

Like weedwhacker says, I mean ProudBird always says go educate yourself and learn some actual science and reading comprehension. It's not my fault if you don't understand it. Perhaps because the report was translated into many languages you are having trouble understanding certain colloquialisms.

Let me help you out then. But first, If you're going to throw out random quotes at least provide the page number that the quote is on. So I don't have to go searching through 300 pages for a single paragraph.

When transmitting in the VLF or ELF frequency range the ionosphere is sliced about in the same way of a space shuttle entering or leaving the atmosphere, leaving an incision at the point of impact. Due to the nature of propagation of VLF and ELF-waves these signals cause streams of particles to rain down beyond the horizon far from the transmitter and in the outermost regions of the atmosphere with very little loss of signal, altering the motion of free electrons and causing electronic rain that influence weather patterns.

You've chosen a quote that I think is more closely related to HAARP technology. Please provide the page number for your quote. I'll try to dumb it down the best I can for you.

VLF = very low frequency

ELF = extremely low frequency

By sending radio waves the ionosphere is altered creating a "slice" or hole / weakened zone.

Due to the increase (propagation) of radio waves causes a stream of particles to rain down altering weather patterns.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Look...I am really, really sorry that you have to automatically believe everything hat supports the existence of the chemtrail hoax

No need to be sorry. You've already proven yourself to me to be a fool in wolves clothing.

I really don't care what you think. Your opinions are the only bunk around here.

You're done as far as I'm concerned. Go ahead and keep clucking and flapping your wings.

It won't help you none as you've obviously been grounded by poppa bear for being a bad boy.

You're a waste of my time. You're not staying on topic and are being sent to the back of the line. I've moved on to discussing a different section with Phage now. One at a time please wait your turn and have an intelligent question.

Stupid statements of biased ignorant opinions deserve no response from me.

Like this one

- it must be hell to think that the very air you breathe is poisoning you in a deliberate attempt to achieve something evil.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Look...I am really, really sorry that you have to automatically believe everything hat supports the existence of the chemtrail hoax

No need to be sorry. You've already proven yourself to me to be a fool in wolves clothing.

Need has nothing to do with it.

BTW here's another statement from "Case Orange" that is factually wrong - this time from their recommendations:

b) It is unacceptable that the Awacs aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxemburg civil registration without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future.

This is not a violation of any law at all - there is no international law that prevents military aircraft also carrying civil registrations, and clearly there is no such law in Luxembourg either.

And the document does not even attempt to identify what the supposed law is that is being breached - it just says that this is illegal....apparently because they think it is.

This is typical of how the chemtrail hoax is perpetuated by invented "evidence".

reply to post by Phage


Nice job editing your post after I answered you.

What's that about huh?

OK, Mr. sneaky smarty pants. You too are being sent to the back of the line until you provide the page number of the quote you want me to comment on.