Chemtrail seeder caught on photo

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Yes I agree there is a conspiracy here - but it seems to me you are the one who is part of it through your disinformation campaign, and I think the public should be made aware of your tactics!


You too?! And here I thought we were pals!

Silver is a heavy metal. Perhaps you've heard of heavy metals? They're toxic to human beings. Nanosized silver is on the rise. It's used in cloud seeding too. I did a thread on it. Nanosized toxicity levels are rated the same as bulk even though they are completely different. They're rated the same as bulk because there have been very few tests with nano. Here's an article I know you'll enjoy:

Nanosilver in consumer products: No silver lining for fish


Smaller than a virus and used in more than 200 consumer products, silver nanoparticles can kill and mutate fish embryos, new research shows.


“Some of the fish became extremely distorted, almost making a number nine or a comma instead of a linear fish,” he said.


The nanosilver caused malformations in their eyes, swim bladders and tails, and some developed fluid around the heart that causes congestive heart failure, according to the study, which was published in August in the nanotechnology journal Small.


Raising concerns about potential harm to human health, other recent research has shown that some metal nanoparticles can damage DNA or kill cells. One new study found that nanoscale particles can cross into the womb through the placenta.


“We have no means of detecting nanosilver in the environment once it is released, even if concentrations rise to levels that are toxic to aquatic ecosystems,” Luoma said in a statement when the report, “Nanoscale Silver: No Silver Lining?” was released last year.


So what you're saying is that as long as we're washing them down the drain, what's a little extra coming from the sky? It's just rain - right? That's the idea, to get it to rain. To get it to rain on everything, right?

My point:; but first, your point:



Why is it you are so concerned about a relatively miniscule amount of a pollutant that is, at worst, an irritant, but not with stuff that is actually dangerous?


Can you figure it out yet?


Can you figure out how much of the pollution you are so worried about at 30000feet is being released at ground level, you know where the air you actually breath is?

Can you figure it out yet?

Using your logic on pollution 30,000 feet vs Ground level i give this example:
If you were a fire fighter and there was high rise building on fire and across the street at the cafe someone left a lit cigarette in the ashtray you would run across the road and extinguish the cigarette and leave the highrise burning.

Can you figure it out yet?




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 




Can you figure out how much of the pollution you are so worried about at 30000feet is being released at ground level, you know where the air you actually breath is?


Cloud seeding is not done at 30,000 feet. There is no evidence that chemtrails are sprayed at 30,000 feet either. You're hooked on 30,000 feet because you need that altitude for persistent contrails. Chemtrails and cloud seeding don't require that.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Cloud seeding is not done at 30,000 feet. There is no evidence that chemtrails are sprayed at 30,000 feet either.


Wow, you said two factually accurate things in the same post. Way to go baby!


Though I am still disappointed that you are in favour of crap being sprayed into the air. I thought you were anti pollution.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Chemtrails can be sprayed at any altitude and are. Chemtrails are not persistent contrails even though you all have made a valiant effort to get them to be perceived that way. Persistent contrails are rare; chemtrails are everyday.



Though I am still disappointed that you are in favour of crap being sprayed into the air. I thought you were anti pollution.


??? I'm not in favor of spraying anything into the atmosphere. I am not in favor of cloud seeding, agent orange spraying, insecticide spraying or geoengineering to 'save' the planet sulphur spraying or aluminum relflective particles to 'shade' us spraying. All of this activity has brought us, in the U.S., into drought with plant and fish and tree die-offs.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So how does your statement that you are not in favour of spraying anything into the atmosphere fit in with you posting enthusiastically that fine dust particles should be used to get rid of contrails? How do you know such an activity would not itself be harmful?

Can you prove that persistsant trails are rare, cos that sounds like nonsense to me?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 




So how does your statement that you are not in favour of spraying anything into the atmosphere fit in with you posting enthusiastically that fine dust particles should be used to get rid of contrails?


That was a discussion in another thread. You're kind of like a dog with a bone here. I gave a quote, which I'll give again here for clarity:

Exhaust Contrails


The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible


So that was a quote from what I think another poster said was from a 1965 original article. It's not the fact of adding dust to the exhaust in the event of a persistent contrail that is startling. What's startling about this is that the exact opposite is true today. Today, smaller particles are desireable for chemtrails because they don't fall out and evaporate or rain out. This means that they stay and wind up creating fake cirrus. So right here you can see that there are two different things being talked about. In 1965, it was the rare persistent contrail that they were trying to avoid. They did this by adding minute particles to the exhaust and that effectively eliminated the contrail.

Today, 2012, and since the late 1990's, sky grids are desireable by TBTB and minute particles are used to create chemtrails and to make sure that they persist. So that right there says that these are two different things. Today's chemtrail is not a contrail like the contrail of yesterday.



Can you prove that persistsant trails are rare, cos that sounds like nonsense to me?


It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.

WWII Contrails


The nature of the contrails was such that they required certain atmospheric conditions to form. Thus, they were principally affected by altitude...We in B-24s typically bombed from about 22,000 feet while the B-17s, which could fly higher, bombed from around 27,000, particularly at tough targets where higher was better in an effort to avoid the flak as much as possible...My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose. The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys. (Ronadl D. Spencer - 467th Bomb Group)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Yes that's the quote, which you posted in support of your own argument that they should get rid rid of contrails because they easily can. You didn't say ANY of what you wrote above, you simply wrote


Everybody agrees they're bad - whether chemtrail or contrail. Why go on with it? Just get rid of them.


If you were not supporting the suppression of contrails by this method, why use the quote at all?



Today, 2012, and since the late 1990's, sky grids are desireable by TBTB and minute particles are used to create chemtrails and to make sure that they persist. So that right there says that these are two different things. Today's chemtrail is not a contrail like the contrail of yesterday.


Again you try to speak of chemtrails as if they are a proven fact, they are not proven to exist at all and so trying analyse what they are made of is a facile exercise.


It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.


All that helps with is illustrating yet again that you seem to possess low skills when it comes to reading and understanding material that you find.

There is no source whatsoever that claims that it needed 1000 bombers to create contrails, only that formations of 1000 bombers DID leave contrails. This is not the same thing at all. The interpretation you take from it is entirely of your own making.

There is also documented evidence of single aircraft leaving persisting spreading trails as well from the same period, such as the Spitfire mentioned below. So how about that?


Flying a Spitfire at Boscombe Down, Longbottom had already completed four flights to 40,000 feet and gathered some data on contrail formation. Although flight operations above 35,000 feet were rare in February 1941, Dobson believed that regular test flights to 40,000 feet were essential, since operational ceilings were steadily increasing.
Finally, Dobson concluded that it was already possible “to issue forecasts of the danger of trail formation whenever cirrus was expected and the temperature was below, say, -53 degrees Celsius at the height of the cirrus.” However, such forecasts “would not be entirely reliable since the humidity might be high even when no cirrus was present.”


jazzroc.wordpress.com...
edit on 7-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids.


Here is some literature about WWII you missed...


The IP was not crossed on course because of interference from dense, persistent contrails and thick ground haze. The run Started as a PFF run, but about two minutes before the BRL, the lead bombardier succeeded in picking up the MPI at intervals before the BRL. Bombing by the lead squadron was a combination PFF/Visual assist.


and this...


The high squadron made three runs. Haze, smoke and Contrails interfered on the first and second runs. On the third run, the squadron made a PFFIVisual assist run and released bombs successfully.


457thbombgroup.org...

Oh before I forget these contrails were reported in....


MISSION NO. 233

DRESDEN, GERMANY

17 APRIL, 1945


457thbombgroup.org...

I am pretty sure April isn't considered winter..

Also can you provide a link that shows there were 1000 planes in the air at the same time or close that made those grids?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Neither is July to September, when the skies of southern England were filled with contrails during the Battle of Britain in 1940.


Here is a particularly good one as it shows a persistent trail spreading over the dome of St Pauls

edit on 7-8-2012 by waynos because: added image



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 




Yes that's the quote, which you posted in support of your own argument that they should get rid rid of contrails because they easily can. You didn't say ANY of what you wrote above, you simply wrote


This is why you all run into trouble. Because you interchange yourselves like clones and reply to replies meant for others who were actually involved in and following the line of thought. Now you create imaginary scenarios based on things taken out of context said in another thread. Further, you expect someone to respond to your nonsense which springs from your belief, at the outset, in a bunk theory.

As far as the quote you put in - it supports my argument, my side, which is, chemtrails are everyday. Persistent contrails are rare. The two are not the same thing; never were the same thing except in the bunk science of outrageously persistent contrails.

If you want to have a rational discussion - I'm all ears. But I won't put up with semantics, twisting and trickery from your bunk science side in order to prove something that you all can't prove, never have proven, because it doesn't exist.

But I'm going to give you some points here: at least you don't seem to require the voice of God spelling things out in order to make a logical deduction based on what is being said rather than WHY it is being said. (To a degree...which is better than your cohorts.)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Persistent contrails are rare; chemtrails are everyday.



Persistent contrails are everyday...somewhere conditions are right for contrails to persist and spread- everyday.

Why do you claim they are rare? All the scientific data dating back decades, as well as the historical and anecdotal data shows that persistent contrails have been quite common...and only more so as air traffic has increased over the past decades...

There is a lot of data showing ice saturated regions to be common and extensive in the regions planes fly.

Can you provide any data that backs up your "rare" claim?

Why not?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi


It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.




My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose.


it took thousands of bombers to make a grid?? imagine that...because there are 1000s of planes in the sky right now...over 30,000 flights EVERYDAY...so, according to you we should expect "grids" given the amount of planes in the sky right now.

Your anecdotal quote about his perception that contrails only lasted 15 minutes is undermined by his belief that they could persist for "hours".

Your own logic and sources are defeating your very premise....



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Persistent contrails are rare. The two are not the same thing; never were the same thing except in the bunk science of outrageously persistent contrails.



Can you explain why the science of contrail formation and persistence is "bunk"? Can you explain why you disagrees with decades of research from scientists around the world?

You keep saying its "bunk" and the persistent contrails are rare...but you can never provide any evidence to back up these claims. Just repeating something over and over - like a mantra- doesn't make it true.

explain why the science in this paper is "bunk":

journals.ametsoc.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi



This is why you all run into trouble. Because you interchange yourselves like clones and reply to replies meant for others who were actually involved in and following the line of thought. Now you create imaginary scenarios based on things taken out of context said in another thread. Further, you expect someone to respond to your nonsense which springs from your belief, at the outset, in a bunk theory.


I actually read back through the thread before I replied to it because it didn't read like something I would expect from you, so that bit of analysis doesn't apply because the previous posts you wrote do not change the meaning of that one. responding to posts, even ones meant for others, is how a discussion board works, you surely know that, and when it comes to a belief in a bunk theory, try looking in the mirror sweet-cheeks




If you want to have a rational discussion - I'm all ears. But I won't put up with semantics, twisting and trickery from your bunk science side in order to prove something that you all can't prove, never have proven, because it doesn't exist.


I almost want to star this bit, if only I could, because it is exactly my own thoughts on your own contributions. regarding 'twisting and trickery' this is precisely how I view much of your own activity and I am reminded of the local saying 'I bet tha' cant even lie in bed straight' (dialect reproduced for accuracy)



As far as the quote you put in - it supports my argument, my side, which is, chemtrails are everyday. Persistent contrails are rare. The two are not the same thing; never were the same thing except in the bunk science of outrageously persistent contrails.


WHERE, does it support any such thing? You have still not demonstrated how you conclude the everyday occurrence of persistent contrails is 'rare', or even how non-existent chemtrails are an everyday event. simply repeating an unsupported claim ad nauseum is not the same as providing evidence for it. I know I am being unfair in asking you to support a claim we both know is stupid nonsense, but you will keep claiming it. Humour me, spell it out in a coherent manner.

So, lets have the rational discussion then,

What of the single aircraft leaving contrails and the summer contrails referred to above during WW2? Are you willing to let go of your claim that it needed 1000 bombers in wintertime to create one?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





This is why you all run into trouble. Because you interchange yourselves like clones and reply to replies meant for others who were actually involved in and following the line of thought.


So what your saying you think that people should not reply to you if the post was meant for someone else, correct?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Exhaust Contrails


The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible


So that was a quote from what I think another poster said was from a 1965 original article. It's not the fact of adding dust to the exhaust in the event of a persistent contrail that is startling. What's startling about this is that the exact opposite is true today. Today, smaller particles are desireable for chemtrails because they don't fall out and evaporate or rain out. This means that they stay and wind up creating fake cirrus. So right here you can see that there are two different things being talked about. In 1965, it was the rare persistent contrail that they were trying to avoid. They did this by adding minute particles to the exhaust and that effectively eliminated the contrail.

Today, 2012, and since the late 1990's, sky grids are desireable by TBTB and minute particles are used to create chemtrails and to make sure that they persist.


you have given a nice quote for one side of your argument.

so how about some evidence for this bit of it?


So that right there says that these are two different things. Today's chemtrail is not a contrail like the contrail of yesterday.


It looks to me that "that right there" is only YOU saying these are 2 different things - I see nothign whatsoever in the way of evidence here other than you saying it is the case - did I miss something?


It's not nonsense at all if you read the WWII literature. It took a thousand bombers flying in tight formation, in winter, with a weather front to create sky grids. These sky grids consisted of contrails that persisted for perhaps 15 minutes. It is all so very obviously completely different from what is being created in our skies today. Hope this helps.

WWII Contrails


The nature of the contrails was such that they required certain atmospheric conditions to form. Thus, they were principally affected by altitude...We in B-24s typically bombed from about 22,000 feet while the B-17s, which could fly higher, bombed from around 27,000, particularly at tough targets where higher was better in an effort to avoid the flak as much as possible...My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose. The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys. (Ronadl D. Spencer - 467th Bomb Group)


15 minutes or MORE is the quote, not "perhaps 15 minutes" which is what you say - the difference is so blatant that I can only assume you totally misread it - because I dont' think anyone would deliberately debunk themselves quite so obviously unless they didnt' have the brains to breathe!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorr
 




Persistent contrails are everyday...somewhere conditions are right for contrails to persist and spread- everyday.


Spare me your bunk science. You all have NO humidity, altitude, temperature, nucleatable particle saturation levels, storm front or at least cirrus forming conditions and cloud corridor (trajectory) data on a flight by flight basis to prove or show anything. You got nothing. You never had anything. You never will have anything.

What you do got is a con. Enough to fool some of the people some of the time. (Abe Lincoln) But only as long as they don't look up.

Thankyou for the link which I am enjoying.
edit on 7-8-2012 by luxordelphi because: add thankyou note



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


So, how come YOU know that its all wrong then? Because you looked up?



And yes, it is obvious that you slipped into rant mode and addressed nobody's questions............. a broad sweeping statement with nothing to support it, yet again

edit on 7-8-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





What you do got is a con. Enough to fool some of the people some of the time. (Abe Lincoln) But only as long as they don't look up.


So then tell me what do you see when you look up?

That's right you see chemtrails and again how was it you are able to tell the difference between a persistent contrail and a so called chemtrail?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




So what your saying you think that people should not reply to you if the post was meant for someone else, correct?


No, baby doll, what I'm saying is don't twist and trick and use semantics to prove your con.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join