Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger




Ok, you got me. It is conceivable. Now, go build a box big enough to surround a whole town, without them noticing, and turn your tornado machine on and wipe them out. If you need suggestions, I'd say D.C. would be a good place to run your test.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

So you don't understand anything even about your own bunk science? The study you put up shows a failure to create contrails even in perfect conditions. Like I said: your bunk science was thought up by morons overnight to explain chemtrails. There is no study that backs up your bunk. But you're not really an advocate for the bunk, you're just a parrot of it, without any understanding.

Not really sure what he posted, but myself and others have posted studies and evidence of contrail study dating back to the 1950s. This is not something that has happened overnight. The evidence proves that you are 100% incorrect, sir.

Your continued ignorance of the facts and spouting off of insults and name calling is just a nail in the coffin of your argument. If you wish to debate the facts, I'm all for it. But you dont seem to be able to handle that.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Y3K89
reply to post by Thorazine

 

*claps*

ummm

did i perhaps offend you in any manner

no no! not any way. I was simply plodding- about "pseudo-experts" - never knew a term existed xD

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

So you don't understand anything even about your own bunk science? The study you put up shows a failure to create contrails even in perfect conditions. Like I said: your bunk science was thought up by morons overnight to explain chemtrails. There is no study that backs up your bunk. But you're not really an advocate for the bunk, you're just a parrot of it, without any understanding.

What on Earth are you talking about? Perhaps you could explain exactly why a contrail should persist for less time than a cloud? Perhaps you could point out exactly what bit of those studies is bunk?

Contrail persistence is basic science. If the air is ice supersaturated, then contrails will persist indefinitely. This has been known since the 1920s.

contrailscience.com...

Or do you think that in 1920, "morons" were thinking up "bunk science" to explain contrails? How about this in 1956? Moronic bunk?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do people that believe in chemtrails think that showing pictures of contrails prove the existence of chemtrails? I really don't get their logic. We know that contrails leave a checkered pattern due to flight paths. We know that contrails can dissipate or linger. What are you trying to show?


Human_Alien...do you believe in every single conspiracy theory you come across? Most of your threads are ridiculous and discredit the real conspiracies. You constantly call everyone that disagrees with you COINTELPRO..... but If anyone would be a dis-info agent it would be you.

Not trying to be mean but...you make us all look like this guy...

edit on 13-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

And the whole point of your post above is exactly what if I may ask, I don't see anything contributed to this thread just a lot of babble.

Personally I have been a without a doubt they have been spraying toxins for about 7-8 years, this means nothing here and I know that but after watching the video posted here and people ignoring the question how can one engine sputter and the other not?


I cut my teeth on this site which everyone knows here but for the fun of it here is the link.
www.carnicominstitute.org...


I can say I have read every page on the above site and I will admit a lot of it is over my head and will forever be.

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one ...........
It would be a slaughter.
To HA the OP S&F and you sure brought them out in droves today!
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do people that believe in chemtrails think that showing pictures of contrails prove the existence of chemtrails? I really don't get their logic. We know that contrails leave a checkered pattern due to flight paths. We know that contrails can dissipate or linger. What are you trying to show?


Human_Alien...do you believe in every single conspiracy theory you come across? Most of your threads are ridiculous and discredit the real conspiracies. You constantly call everyone that disagrees with you COINTELPRO..... but If anyone would be a dis-info agent it would be you.

Not trying to be mean but...you make us all look like this guy...

edit on 13-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

And the whole point of your post above is exactly what if I may ask, I don't see anything contributed to this thread just a lot of babble.

Personally I have been a without a doubt they have been spraying toxins for about 7-8 years, this means nothing here and I know that but after watching the video posted here and people ignoring the question how can one engine sputter and the other not?


I cut my teeth on this site which everyone knows here but for the fun of it here is the link.
www.carnicominstitute.org...


I can say I have read every page on the above site and I will admit a lot of it is over my head and will forever be.

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one ...........
It would be a slaughter.
To HA the OP S&F and you sure brought them out in droves today!
Regards, Iwinder

edit on 13-7-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)

Engine sputter ... huh, what are you talking about? Are you referencing the video of the KC-10 refueling plane that was purported to have "nozzles" and be spraying? If thats the case ... the original unedited video was linked, and the video itself was a joke. The "nozzles" are farings for the flaps, which can be found on every one of these KC-10 refuelers, and the "spray" was explained in a quote from that very person.

I REALLY hope that you are not saying that video was the final straw in the argument for you.

reply to post by Iwinder

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one

Debate Cliff? On the existence of imaginary Chemtrails? I'd LOVE TO! I'll debate him on Chemtrails, or if he really wants a fighting chance, maybe we should debate something like Leprechauns. At least then I won't have science, fact, and 10,000 commercial pilots, and 10,000 meteorologists, and 100 years of history to use to bury him.

reply to post by luxordelphi


But I Linked to several studies. Please explain?

What is it you don't understand? Maybe you have evidence that some of the studies are flawed, in which case I'd like to see the evidence. We're all here to learn.

I may be wrong. But I don't think I can accept I am wrong simply on the basis that, without any evidence, you say so.

Originally posted by flyswatter

I think it would be a bit different if people were presenting proof of chemtrails rather than assumptions and speculation. But as it stands, tests have not been done, proof has not been presented, and we're left with keyboard warriors trying to pass their opinions as facts.

Oh, please forgive me, I didn't realize ATS was full of facts and not speculation, and that speculation was verboten. Let's go back through your posts and see if there is any speculation anywhere.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by flyswatter

I think it would be a bit different if people were presenting proof of chemtrails rather than assumptions and speculation. But as it stands, tests have not been done, proof has not been presented, and we're left with keyboard warriors trying to pass their opinions as facts.

Oh, please forgive me, I didn't realize ATS was full of facts and not speculation. Let's go back through your posts and see if there is any speculation anywhere.

Oh, sure, there's speculation in some of my posts. But the main difference here is that I dont pass my opinion off as fact. I use the facts to help me form my opinion, as everyone should!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Iwinder

 

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one

Debate Cliff? On the existence of imaginary Chemtrails?

I'd LOVE TO! I'll debate him on Chemtrails, or if he really wants a fighting chance, maybe we should debate something like Leprechauns. At least then I won't have science, fact, and 10,000 commercial pilots, and 10,000 meteorologists, and 100 years of history to use to bury him.

Maybe with your connections here at ATS you could possibly set it up?

It would be fascinating to see a couple of Mensa members go at it, Please see what you and do and if Cliff agrees put me down for ring side seats.....Two please.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do people that believe in chemtrails think that showing pictures of contrails prove the existence of chemtrails? I really don't get their logic. We know that contrails leave a checkered pattern due to flight paths. We know that contrails can dissipate or linger. What are you trying to show?


Human_Alien...do you believe in every single conspiracy theory you come across? Most of your threads are ridiculous and discredit the real conspiracies. You constantly call everyone that disagrees with you COINTELPRO..... but If anyone would be a dis-info agent it would be you.

Not trying to be mean but...you make us all look like this guy...

edit on 13-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

And the whole point of your post above is exactly what if I may ask, I don't see anything contributed to this thread just a lot of babble.

Personally I have been a without a doubt they have been spraying toxins for about 7-8 years, this means nothing here and I know that but after watching the video posted here and people ignoring the question how can one engine sputter and the other not?


I cut my teeth on this site which everyone knows here but for the fun of it here is the link.
www.carnicominstitute.org...


I can say I have read every page on the above site and I will admit a lot of it is over my head and will forever be.

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one ...........
It would be a slaughter.
To HA the OP S&F and you sure brought them out in droves today!
Regards, Iwinder

edit on 13-7-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)

Engine sputter ... huh, what are you talking about? Are you referencing the video of the KC-10 refueling plane that was purported to have "nozzles" and be spraying? If thats the case ... the original unedited video was linked, and the video itself was a joke. The "nozzles" are farings for the flaps, which can be found on every one of these KC-10 refuelers, and the "spray" was explained in a quote from that very person.

I REALLY hope that you are not saying that video was the final straw in the argument for you.

Did you watch the video and read the thread all the way through?

I was asking Realspoke not you but your reply is a welcome derailment to this thread.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by observe50
On every subject there is going to be the ying-yang we should all know that.

If you watch the skies every day then maybe just maybe it will hit the skeptics something isn't right but it's a logic and common sense thing and from what I know most people don't use it.

Except it isn't at all is it. It's a fear and superstion thing. You know, like "woo I don't understand why or how aircraft and the atmosphere interact with each other in that way so I'm going assume skulduggery and be scared of it" WHERE is the common sense?

A parrallel might be drawn with remote African tribes who thought that white men came in the stomachs of big silver birds carrying fire sticks. They saw, but they couldn't quite grasp WHAT they saw.

Chemtrailers are exactly like this, which is perhaps why some feel they are ripe for mockery.

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do people that believe in chemtrails think that showing pictures of contrails prove the existence of chemtrails? I really don't get their logic. We know that contrails leave a checkered pattern due to flight paths. We know that contrails can dissipate or linger. What are you trying to show?


Human_Alien...do you believe in every single conspiracy theory you come across? Most of your threads are ridiculous and discredit the real conspiracies. You constantly call everyone that disagrees with you COINTELPRO..... but If anyone would be a dis-info agent it would be you.

Not trying to be mean but...you make us all look like this guy...

edit on 13-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

And the whole point of your post above is exactly what if I may ask, I don't see anything contributed to this thread just a lot of babble.

Personally I have been a without a doubt they have been spraying toxins for about 7-8 years, this means nothing here and I know that but after watching the video posted here and people ignoring the question how can one engine sputter and the other not?


I cut my teeth on this site which everyone knows here but for the fun of it here is the link.
www.carnicominstitute.org...


I can say I have read every page on the above site and I will admit a lot of it is over my head and will forever be.

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one ...........
It would be a slaughter.
To HA the OP S&F and you sure brought them out in droves today!
Regards, Iwinder

edit on 13-7-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)

Engine sputter ... huh, what are you talking about? Are you referencing the video of the KC-10 refueling plane that was purported to have "nozzles" and be spraying? If thats the case ... the original unedited video was linked, and the video itself was a joke. The "nozzles" are farings for the flaps, which can be found on every one of these KC-10 refuelers, and the "spray" was explained in a quote from that very person.

I REALLY hope that you are not saying that video was the final straw in the argument for you.

Did you watch the video and read the thread all the way through?

I was asking Realspoke not you but your reply is a welcome derailment to this thread.

Regards, Iwinder

Heh, thanks for clarifying

It just bugs me when falsities like that are pushed around as if they were fact. Not only has that video been explained, but I sit about 5 feet from a pilot at my desk here at work. I turned around and asked him "what the hell are these things?" without giving him the context of the argument being had. It took all of 2.2 seconds to answer "flap farings", then he spent another 5 minutes demonstrating what they were and how they are vital to the plane.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Iwinder

 

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one

Debate Cliff? On the existence of imaginary Chemtrails?

I'd LOVE TO! I'll debate him on Chemtrails, or if he really wants a fighting chance, maybe we should debate something like Leprechauns. At least then I won't have science, fact, and 10,000 commercial pilots, and 10,000 meteorologists, and 100 years of history to use to bury him.

Yeah, I'd love to debate Cliff on chemtrails. Especially when he bases it on nonsense like this:
www.carnicominstitute.org...

Where he basically proves that clouds cannot exist.

reply to post by flyswatter

If you wish to debate the facts, I'm all for it. But you dont seem to be able to handle that.

What facts? AndyMayhew put up a study from the early 1970's that showed a failure to produce contrails in perfect conditions. What am I? Talking with myself? If you're not sure what AndyMayhew posted: why not read it?

Name-calling? People who invent bunk science are what? Rocket scientists?

I can't really say this any clearer: chemtrails were a planned operation, albeit a hurried one. An explanation needed to be found for their sudden appearance in the skies. Chaff was getting old. A bunk science was invented, overnight, by morons, to explain it. Where's the mystery?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

Ok, you got me. It is conceivable. Now, go build a box big enough to surround a whole town, without them noticing, and turn your tornado machine on and wipe them out.

If you need suggestions, I'd say D.C. would be a good place to run your test.

oh but this is all done "out of the box"
tecnically speaking the earth is a closed system [well not exactly as there are constant intrusions]
metal particles
a heater
air and water
stir as required
if you're old enough you may remember articles about space mirrors for weather manipulation among other things

I'd say D.C. would be a good place to run your test.

double lol
piglipstick.blogspot.com...

The bottom line, as Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project notes, is that after billions have been spent by Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and local law enforcement, we are no more prepared today than we were the day before September 11, 2011.

After a short but unusually severe thunderstorm that roared through the D.C. area on Friday night, the entire Washington Metropolitan Area was thrown into chaos.

Three days later, countless traffic lights are still out, hundreds of thousands of residents are without power, including myself, grocery stores and gas station are closed for lack of power, and the federal government is encouraging employees to telework.

[SHTFplan Editor's note: Brilliant recommendation from the best and brightest – to "telework" when the grid is down. ]
...
Is this the work of a terrible terrorist attack? No, it is the complete disaster non-preparedness a decade after 9/11. Despite the fact that billions if not trillions have been spent since 9/11 on counter-terrorism and so-called "homeland security" measures, one of the major terrorist targets, the nation's capital, cannot cope with a severe thunderstorm.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
A bunk science was invented, overnight, by morons, to explain it. Where's the mystery?

I am confused- the study of contrail formation, persistence and spreading existed long before the theory of "chemtrails" came into being...So, why do you claim it was "invented" over night?

Moreover, can you please explain WHY the science is bunk?

Please explain why ice crystals formed from the exhaust of airplanes cannot persist. How are they any different than the ice crystals found in cirrus clouds?

why do cirrus clouds persist but contrails supposedly cannot?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter

 

If you wish to debate the facts, I'm all for it. But you dont seem to be able to handle that.

What facts? AndyMayhew put up a study from the early 1970's that showed a failure to produce contrails in perfect conditions. What am I? Talking with myself? If you're not sure what AndyMayhew posted: why not read it?

Name-calling? People who invent bunk science are what? Rocket scientists?

I can't really say this any clearer: chemtrails were a planned operation, albeit a hurried one. An explanation needed to be found for their sudden appearance in the skies. Chaff was getting old. A bunk science was invented, overnight, by morons, to explain it. Where's the mystery?

Ok, let me do the work for you here, showing that your insistance that this was an overnight thing is 100% false:

The following were noted by Aloysius:

Appleman Chart published in 1953 on the predicting of persistent contrails
science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

Search of Flight Magazine articles from 1940-1943
www.flightglobal.com... ar=1943&x=15&y=10

August 3rd 1956 article from Flight
www.flightglobal.com...=0&search='contrail'&scrollbar=0&page=1&view=FitH,0

Here are some things that I posted in my post right after his:

Effect of Contrail Cirrus on Surface Weather Conditions in the Midwest - Phase I
www.isws.illinois.edu...

NASA Scientist: Persistent Contrails Cause Global Warming
www.zengardner.com...

An Optimal Strategy for Persistent Contrail Avoidance
www.ae.illinois.edu...

Measurements of relative humidity in a persistent contrail
www.esrl.noaa.gov/search/publications/92/

Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget
contrailscience.com...



The point here is to prove that your assertion of it being a bunk science that was made up overnight was wrong. Even the limited amount of work that was done to show the links above proves that.

I doubt anyone will try and debate the fact that some airplanes can spray stuff, so I am ignoring everything in this thread.