So Maybe There ARE Chemtrails...

Geesh...a quick search does wonders. I'm still not sure what the argument is? Especially when, this stuff is blatantly ADMITTED, as being used.

Scientists and governments refer to, what is commonly known around the world as Chemtrails (not to be confused with normal jet contrails), as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (S.A.G.). It has been documented, as far back as the late 1980’s, that the United States (U.S.) Government has been conducting covert S.A.G. programs. These covert operations are now being conducted worldwide throughout the U.S. and NATO countries on an on-going daily bases. This program is a global covert operation.Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering

Who's in denial???

reply to post by totallackey


Please!
If you want evidence, you have to look for it yourself when dealing with this issue.

Here is a company that I'm extremely interested in. I wouldn't doubt that they're supplying many of the SRM materials. I don't find it strange at all that they started out as a pharmaceutical company and have been given an award by Bank of America.
Here is a page about one of the nanoparticles they have for sale: Mind you, their products do have positive uses, but I'm sure that someone with the right amount of money could purchase these materials for the wrong reasons, too.
www.reade.com... anomaterial-nanodots

a) Drug delivery - nanoparticles for absorption through the skin and eyes (far more pleasant than injections), and for inhalation, to avoid stomach enzymes - which fortunately don't exist in the lungs - destroying drugs; nanocapsules for delayed release; and dendrimers for drug delivery.
b) Solar energy - tougher, more efficient solar cells are already under development, with the promise of drastic cost reductions on the horizon. Some will even produce hydrogen.

They've been around a loooonnnnnggggggg time!
www.reade.com...

The Reade family industrial businesses were originally established in Wolverhampton, England as Reade Brothers Co., Ltd. way back in 1773. They manufactured pharmaceutical chemicals.

reply to post by profundus

Where is this documentation?
Where is it admitted?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

You didn´t read it.

Yes, I did.

Then i know you truly understand. So drop the act will ya?

reply to post by Afterthought


HOO FREAKING RAY!!! Kindly take this ASTOUNDING tidbit of information you posted and present it to a qualified attorney. Have that attorney open a lawsuit against the chemtrailers...

PS: Do not be surprised when that attorney looks at you with a single eyebrow raised, thanks you for coming in, and then softly says to the receptionist (after you are out of earshot), "Who opened the gates at Bellevue?"

Originally posted by stars15k
I used to only come here for the "chemtrail" debates. It is something so frustrating to me that people would rather believe in something than try and learn something.
Face it, all you people who feel I must be some kind of a professional ...????shill, disinfo agent, plant, NWO reptilian?......only increases my feelings about how far your paranoia has taken over your logic and thought processes.
I am easy to find online. My footprint is small, but I'm easy to find.
Please show something, anything that proves your point. All the time I've been on this forum for years and everything claimed as evidence by a believer is easy to debunk. This particular thread is an example. Lots of pictures of contrails, testimonials, feelings, recollections....but no tests to show that a "chemtrail" is doing or contains anything more than a contrail does.
You don't have to be a professional , I have just learned enough about all the related sciences involved to know contrails are contrails, "chemtrails" are contrails, and there is no real evidence to the contrary.
Why does this make my participation and views any less valid than yours? I've asked for evidence, and nothing. I've offered evidence to the contrary and no one refutes it beyond attempts at insulting me.
If you can't refute the science, or even attempt to show how the science is wrong, you are operating on a belief system only.
That is not good enough for me, most of the people in the world, and scientists for the past 90+ years.

I admire the honesty, in fact I would not be so hard to find. That's not really the point though, have a look at this paper, the introduction in English is a bit ropy and makes me think a bit borrowed, but no matter.

ftp.rta.nato.int...

However good and well as the paper may be, there is one statement that precludes what could be considered a decent flow of events from the combustion chamber to exhaust and beyond, and not particularly all that good.
"The complexity associated with the chemical composition of kerosene-type fuels is well recognized [5], and a detailed computational consideration of all of the fuel components of kerosene would be prohibitive. Doute et al"

It does not enlarge on that, and there is no way of knowing if the tested fuel included additives, of which their chemical makeup is proprietary, AKA secret, or not, and also while some additives can be added Ad Hoc. I have seen that statement before.

reply to post by totallackey


What grade are you in? Or rather, what grade did you make it to?
No. Seriously.
By the way, you're the one who suggested going to an attorney about this. Not I. I do realize that any attorney would simply reject any and all law suits associated with this matter. Just look at those who are claiming they have morgellons.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Where is this documentation?

The same place yours is. What makes your "facts", FACTS...and everything else just opinions and ignorance? Now, being that i'm a nice guy-n-all, here's some more info you might not enjoy.

The concept of ‘geoengineering’ (the deliberate change of the Earth's climate by mankind; has been considered at least as far back as the 1830s with J. P. Espy's suggestion of lighting huge fires that would stimulate convective updrafts and change rain intensity and frequency of occurrence. Geoengineering has been considered for many reasons since then, ranging from making polar latitudes habitable to changing precipitation patterns. An Overview of Geoengineering

Originally posted by bluestorm
It only takes ones eyes and a few minutes each day looking into the sky to find the truth

It takes MORE.

To see "the truth" you need to understand what you're looking at. If you don't, you will never find the truth.

Originally posted by Phage
Oh, I agree. The problem is, this is an anonymous forum on the internet so it doesn't really matter what any of us claim about ourselves. Including our IQ.

and i figured that was coming....this is why i don't like to mention my IQ...because eventually, when the other side is getting desperate, they will try to make it about me, instead of either continuing the debate, or conceding...i made reference to my IQ earlier to make a point..a point i thought you were smart enough to get, but it would appear that instead of using your head, you're resorting to the same tactics as the others....god damn you.

Perhaps you would like to directly dispute some of the data I've provided.

no, i woudn't.....because i'm not going to presume to speak with authority on subjects i'm not well versed in. my entire point in participating in this thread, was to express my annoyance with the tactics employed by the denial camp.... -shrug-

Not really relevant. No one is claiming that people didn't smoke cigarettes and no one is claiming that "chemtrails" are beneficial.

completely relevant...

You made the assertion that the credentials of the person presenting information don't matter, when the information being presented was sourced......once upon a time it was sourced, verifiable FACT that cigarettes were good for you...we know better now...

you know damn well what i was getting at, don't you DARE sit there and play stupid withe me..

reply to post by Daedalus

i appreciate that, but that doesn't quite do it either..

And why is that?

reply to post by profundus

The same place yours is. What makes your "facts", FACTS...and everything else just opinions and ignorance?

I've provided sources. You've provided claims of soruces.

here's some more info you might not enjoy

Thanks. I've seen it. You see, I'm interested in the science not nonsense about "chemtrails".

This study has reviewed one technique that might be used in a planetary emergency to mitigate some of the effects of a projected global warming. We emphasize that, while the studies highlighted here are a step along the way, we believe no proposal (including the ideas explored here) has yet completed the series of steps required for a comprehensive and thoroughly studied geoengineering mitigation strategy occurring in the peer reviewed literature (Cicerone 2006).

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...

reply to post by Daedalus

you're resorting to the same tactics as the others....god damn you.

What?

was to express my annoyance with the tactics employed by the denial camp

Ok. Annoyance noted. Some time ago.

you know damn well what i was getting at, don't you DARE sit there and play stupid withe me..

Oh. Ok. You've got me scared now.

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Phage
Oh, I agree. The problem is, this is an anonymous forum on the internet so it doesn't really matter what any of us claim about ourselves. Including our IQ.

and i figured that was coming....this is why i don't like to mention my IQ...because eventually, when the other side is getting desperate, they will try to make it about me, instead of either continuing the debate, or conceding...i made reference to my IQ earlier to make a point..a point i thought you were smart enough to get, but it would appear that instead of using your head, you're resorting to the same tactics as the others....god damn you.

Perhaps you would like to directly dispute some of the data I've provided.

no, i woudn't.....because i'm not going to presume to speak with authority on subjects i'm not well versed in. my entire point in participating in this thread, was to express my annoyance with the tactics employed by the denial camp.... -shrug-

Not really relevant. No one is claiming that people didn't smoke cigarettes and no one is claiming that "chemtrails" are beneficial.

completely relevant...

You made the assertion that the credentials of the person presenting information don't matter, when the information being presented was sourced......once upon a time it was sourced, verifiable FACT that cigarettes were good for you...we know better now...

you know damn well what i was getting at, don't you DARE sit there and play stupid withe me..

An IQ is not about how "smart" you are, it's an assessment of your ability to think and reason. Now, you can tell, there's alot of "smart" people here, with LOW IQ's.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Daedalus

 

i appreciate that, but that doesn't quite do it either..

And why is that?

because there's no information about what kind of "sensors" are on the plane, what they are capable of detecting...and even if they were decent sensors, you would still need proper labratory-grade equipment to properly analyze the samples, to get a REAL sense of what is in the trail....

and why in the hell am i gonna hire a german company to do sampling in american airspace? that's just stupid..

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

The same place yours is. What makes your "facts", FACTS...and everything else just opinions and ignorance?

I've provided sources. You've provided claims of soruces.

here's some more info you might not enjoy

Thanks. I've seen it. You see, I'm interested in the science not nonsense about "chemtrails".

This study has reviewed one technique that might be used in a planetary emergency to mitigate some of the effects of a projected global warming. We emphasize that, while the studies highlighted here are a step along the way, we believe no proposal (including the ideas explored here) has yet completed the series of steps required for a comprehensive and thoroughly studied geoengineering mitigation strategy occurring in the peer reviewed literature (Cicerone 2006).

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...

And SCIENCE SAYS they're spraying stuff in the stratosphere. No hablas ingles??? THEY HAVE ADMITTED IT. IT'S NOT A SECRET ANYMORE.

reply to post by profundus

here's some more info you might not enjoy.

Why would discussions on studies and models be something that is not enjoyed?

We provide an overview of geoengineering by stratospheric sulphate aerosols. The state of understanding about this topic as of early 2008 is reviewed, summarizing the past 30 years of work in the area, highlighting some very recent studies using climate models, and discussing methods used to deliver sulphur species to the stratosphere.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...

You do understand this is a paper on the studies and models , but that doesn't prove geoengineering is happening at this time.

reply to post by profundus

And SCIENCE SAYS they're spraying stuff in the stratosphere.

No. It says that proposals to do so in case of a global climate crisis needs more study. I do understand English. Can you read Englis? Can you tell me where is says anything is being done other than computer modeling?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Daedalus

 

you're resorting to the same tactics as the others....god damn you.

What?

was to express my annoyance with the tactics employed by the denial camp

Ok. Annoyance noted. Some time ago.

you know damn well what i was getting at, don't you DARE sit there and play stupid withe me..

Oh. Ok. You've got me scared now.

edit on 2/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

ok, take it easy man....was nice chatting with you...

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes

 

You lack good discussion skills. You simply posted those videos to evoke a response. Or bait, flame, troll anyone who engaged with it. I see what you're doing and it won't be entertained.

I lack discussion skills you say?

Okay then let' have a discussion, what would you like to discuss?

Remember keep it easy since I have no skills according to you...

Great! Youtube is your source of evidence and debunking.

As is it the OP's also, so what does that say about this thread?

I also seem to remember you were all good to back this video in a different thread...

I guess youtube is only a good source when it suits your needs?

Want a discussion sure let's. Your debate skills would be even worse as you've taken everything out of context or simply misunderstood it what I have said or have been saying. Bad form.

I did not back that video, claim it was credible or say it was EVIDENCE. I had recently just viewed the video a few days earlier and was interested enough to bring it up. Quote anything you wish from my posts but I did not evaluate it as solid evidence, nor was it my post or a video I embedded myself. Nice try but fail.

We can do this all day. You have no proof that will satisfy me, and I won't share anything else with you because you have been quite obnoxious I believe. But hey that's my opinion as well, and I don't have evidence.

Sorry about that. Continue believing what you want, but that troll post which is where this started was not necessary. It does show a lack of intelligent discussion.

Posting YouTube videos saying it will be posted anyways and I'll save you guys the time.. FFfft who are you to judge what people are believing and are about to say. I may not have evidence for you but with your crystal ball knowing what everyones going to say and what they're are going to contribute.. Why would I need to? I mean you've got a crystal ball...




Now please continue on.