Chemtrails a HOAX.... So who is responsible and Why are there so many sources of Information?

Mikeultra
WAYNOS

If it's a matter of exhaust gases, then I won't argue with that. Toxic exhaust is an issue with any kind of combustion process, including aircraft engines, but those toxins are not anything to do with the trail, they are present all the time the aircraft is under power, the one saving grace of airliner engines is! I suppose, that they only combust about 10% of the air that passes through them to generate thrust! I don't know of any other combustion power source that can claim that.

This might be the answer I'm looking for. Only 10% of the air passing through these new high bypass engines? The spray nozzles are located inside the engine cowlings behind the fan blades. The chemical substance is therefore released into the 90% of airflow that is not injected into the engines. That theory now eliminates the argument that engine wear would result from a fuel additive. Although I still think that is also possible with sub-micron sized particles. So it's possible there are separate "substance tanks" in the wings near the engines, that feed the nozzles located in the engine cowlings. GE probably has these nozzles mislabeled as harmless h2o. This would explain the switch over to these ridiculously large new engine types!

Sorry waynos, I don't know how to use the quote system exactly right yet.

OK. next problem is getting these aerosols up into the stratosphere where they would be effective for geoengineering purposes

reply to post by Mikeultra

Would these mechanics not be concerned about the safty and health of their families? Heck why would pilots be so callous as to not care about their families to not question and be concerned for the health of their relatives. Not everyone cares about money and some even put the well being of family above career.

reply to post by totallackey

1. Solidly define what is a chemtrail (i.e. chemical composition, shape, color, etc.); 2. Solidly define who is responsible for a chemtrail (pilots, specific craft, suppliers, etc.); 3. Solidly define when are chemtrails present (i.e., time, date, etc.) 4. Solidly define where chemtrails are present (i.e., atmospheric conditions, height, etc.)

All of the above stated are constantly changing with each chemtrail believer and they can`t even decide on who is responsible or what it is they actually do or how it is delivered. There is enough evidence to see this in the history of the theory itself.

Mikeultra

network dude
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Great! and if that's the case, then we should be hearing from engine mechanics all over the world exposing the chemtrail phenomenon. Oh, wait, nobody is doing that.

How about first, try to figure out IF there is anything being sprayed before you start to worry about HOW it's happening.

Not if the engine manufacturers have included service manuals that have these nozzles identified as some benign h2o doo-dad for clearing soot from inside the cowling. Along with labeling these nozzles as such. Then there is self preservation on the part of the mechanics. If they start asking questions, they might find themselves without a job. Or worse they might just disappear! The economy isn't doing so well these days, so loose lips sink ships is the order of the day for anyone getting uppity under the cowlings.

As I said, you are jumping to the cause of the issue without verifying if there is even an issue, but just to play along, How does this chemical get put into the wing tanks? How does the engineer account for the weight of the liquid? Are you aware of how much liquid would be needed per plane to make even a small trail?

Those questions should be looked at to have a good understanding of things before we start burning anyone at the stake.

reply to post by Mikeultra


I can find no merit whatsoever in the idea that the engine manufacturers would put out false manuals that trained and experienced engineers would work from and not think there was anything wrong, let alone that they would just play along if they did know it was happening.

When invented, baseless guesswork is needed to make an earlier guess workable, that is when the whole idea unravels. Sometimes one just needs to accept that their is no factual or credible reason to suppose something is occurring, even if it 'might'.

reply to post by Mikeultra

You are forgetting that global warming (which origionally was the theory that the planet was cooling) and chemtrails started as separate theories NOT one and the same.They eventually merged in SOME circles but NOT in all later down the line.

reply to post by Mikeultra

1992 is when the whole world got together and conspired to do evil together!

So what was or is your part?

The whole world? I must been off planet at the time.

Korg Trinity

Jab0rnal

Korg Trinity

As of yet I have not seen a shred of evidence that could disprove the theory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to people to disprove something that may or may not exist, regardless of topic. It is up to you, the believer, who has passion and belief in the topic to present undeniable proof that your extraordinary claim is real. Making your argument unbunkable is one way to sway the disbelieving in favour of your topic.

edit on 13/11/2013 by Jab0rnal because: (no reason given)

I think you must have misread my post.

I'm asking for those that attempt to debunk the Chemtrail theory to put their money where their mouths are... and fess up their reasoning as to a HOAX.

For if Chemtrails are not a reality then it is a HOAX... if it is a hoax then there is or are people involved in making the hoax.

I'm simply asking who and why...

Can you see where I am coming from?

Korg.

Are you one of the who and why?


Like debunkers get accused and asked countless times, are you being paid to push the Chemtrail theory?

reply to post by Korg Trinity

The reasoning that it is a hoax is that there is no evidence of chemtrails. The people creating the hoax are uninformed conspiracy theorists (not anyone on this thread or site but the people who started the theory) who don`t have a real grasp of weather patterns and the motivation behind perpotrating said hoax is publicity for themselves in order to sell books and merchandise. That or they are government disinfo agents trying to make people bicker about the topic and make others afraid of technology to keep the populance in a state of fear.

reply to post by InhaleExhale

Exactly! Five countries cannot decide to work together never mind the world. Does sound fishy how the WHOLE WORLD decided to do evil together in that year.

InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

1992 is when the whole world got together and conspired to do evil together!

So what was or is your part?

The whole world? I must been off planet at the time.

I'm sorry, I should have said the whole of world governments got together and conspired to do evil together. I am not in any way part of this evil. I have no government connections. I'm sure you were on the planet when this occurred, perhaps unaware of what was going on in Brazil. Of course it's possible you were not yet born, so there's your out...

Stabilization of Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

"In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter.[22] The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur. The emissions associated with atmospheric stabilization varies among different GHGs. This is because of differences in the processes that remove each gas from the atmosphere.[23] Concentrations of some GHGs decrease almost immediately in response to emission reduction, e.g., methane, while others continue to increase for centuries even with reduced emissions, e.g., carbon dioxide."

"All relevant GHGs need to be considered if atmospheric GHG concentrations are to be stabilized.[12]:9 Human activities result in the emission of four principal GHGs: carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine).[24] Carbon dioxide is the most important of the GHGs that human activities release into the atmosphere.[13] At present, human activities are adding emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far faster than they are being removed.[23] This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub.[25] So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise. To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, emissions would essentially need to be completely eliminated.[23] It is estimated that reducing carbon dioxide emissions 100% below their present level (i.e., complete elimination) would lead to a slow decrease in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 40 parts-per-million (ppm) over the 21st century."

"The emissions reductions required to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2 can be contrasted with the reductions required for methane. Unlike CO2, methane has a well-defined lifetime in the atmosphere of about 12 years. Lifetime is defined as the time required to reduce a given perturbation of methane in the atmosphere to 37% of its initial amount.[23] Stabilizing emissions of methane would lead, within decades, to a stabilization in its atmospheric concentration.[26]"

"The climate system would take time to respond to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.[27] Temperature stabilization would be expected within a few centuries. Sea level rise due thermal expansion would be expected to continue for centuries to millennia. Additional sea level rise due to ice melting would be expected to continue for several millennia."
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Mikeultra

Your list of countries is NOT the whole world by the way; You DO realize that yes? Last I checked there were more then 41 countries in the world. Plus who says that they conspireed to do EVIL? By who`s standards? Not to derail the thread or anything but in my experience both `good` and `evil` are subjective.The 41 countries mentioned probably thought (and still think that they are doing good) with their decision while you think they are doiing evil.

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Your list of countries is NOT the whole world by the way; You DO realize that yes? Last I checked there were more then 41 countries in the world.

edit on 11 06 13 by nergalbanda1 because: added a sentance

Yes you are correct, I shouldn't have said the whole of world governments. Let's just say they are a cabal of nations bent on imposing their plans on the entire planet. All using the United Nations as the central core of the plans.

reply to post by Mikeultra

Ok that makes more sense then.
2nd line

reply to post by Mikeultra


If the method of deployment would be as you suggest, with nozzles inside the engine cowling, then there obviously would have to be tanks, large tanks, onboard the aircraft, for carrying whatever is being sprayed.

This brings up several issues.
1. There wouldn't be large tanks on a commercial jet containing whatever without the pilots being aware, for obvious reasons. This rules out the 'remotely activated' theory and leaves two options, either all the pilots are involved, or jets are being disguised as civilian airliners, with transponders et al, and are used solely for spraying.

2. If you go for the idea that civilian pilots are involved then where are the whistleblowers? Think about how long this operation has supposedly been going on, how many currently active and retired pilots are we talking about? Thousands upon thousands. There should be a lot of people who have come forward, there aren't. And that's just pilots, what about ground crew?

3. The planes in disguise option is equally redundant. Where are these fleets of planes, painted in the livery of every major airline, kept? Who flies and services them, we're talking a lot of aircraft here. What about transponders? I can see a jet leaving a contrail in the sky, I can go inside and check online what flight it is, where it took off and where its headed, I can also check the departures at the airport where the plane took off etc. It doesn't take much thinking to realize how impossibly difficult it would be to somehow have a disguised 'spraying jet' in the same locale as the real flight just so annoying people like me on the ground looking up would be fooled.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

For if Chemtrails are not a reality then it is a HOAX... if it is a hoax then there is or are people involved in making the hoax.

That usually helps to spread a hoax...other people and the internet.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


First: your questions are posed assuming that the hoax is chemtrails. The hoax is actually outrageously persistent contrails. No such thing exists or has ever existed.

So a better way of looking would be to ask why was the hoax of outrageously persistent contrails created?

And the answer to that devolves into why is there propaganda and why are there cover-ups and why is there censorship?

Diverse individuals were observing something they had never seen before. They had questions. The answers to these questions were, originally, nonsensical, like flak. Some people, like Carnicom, tested the answers and found them false and posted this falseness on the internet.

Joe on the street was not a meteorologist nor a jet engine emissions expert nor a military flak expert. Joe was, in some cases, easily led. And confused. Confused about his observations. Deliberately confused about what he had actually observed and questioned.

That was not surprising because military and government and corporate money were all solidly behind the hoax of outrageously persistent contrails and the peeps in the wilderness asking what is that, were answered by a bunch of non-understandable rhetoric. And told that this had always been going on...they just hadn't ever noticed...before now.

When someone does take the time to follow the debunker argument to its' root, wading through studies and unfamiliar language, it is ignored. Because the arguments are long and winding and deliberately misleading.

And all arguments against chemtrails deny observation. Observation was once the beginning of an answer. But in this argument we are continually asked to deny that and to proceed as though our observation had never happened.

S&F.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

First: your questions are posed assuming that the hoax is chemtrails. The hoax is actually outrageously persistent contrails. No such thing exists or has ever existed.

ROFL......the irony of posting this to a site that has a motto "DENY ignorance"

reply to post by Mikeultra

1992 is when the whole world got together and conspired to do evil together! It's the United Nations master plan of destruction. Agenda 21 and sustainability, no more cars for anyone. You walk or ride a bike! Weather modification is in there, and putting crap in the air is a big part of the plan. Population control is a big part of it too. Crap=chem-trails. I don't know why chem-trails is treated like a dirty word...

So what exactly did the world get together and conspire about?

You do understand that not all people live close enough to humanity where they can walk or ride a bike.

So what is this plan you speak about?

InhaleExhale

Korg Trinity

Jab0rnal

Korg Trinity

As of yet I have not seen a shred of evidence that could disprove the theory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to people to disprove something that may or may not exist, regardless of topic. It is up to you, the believer, who has passion and belief in the topic to present undeniable proof that your extraordinary claim is real. Making your argument unbunkable is one way to sway the disbelieving in favour of your topic.

edit on 13/11/2013 by Jab0rnal because: (no reason given)

I think you must have misread my post.

I'm asking for those that attempt to debunk the Chemtrail theory to put their money where their mouths are... and fess up their reasoning as to a HOAX.

For if Chemtrails are not a reality then it is a HOAX... if it is a hoax then there is or are people involved in making the hoax.

I'm simply asking who and why...

Can you see where I am coming from?

Korg.

Are you one of the who and why?


Like debunkers get accused and asked countless times, are you being paid to push the Chemtrail theory?

No true I am not being paid but then I'm not pushing the Chemtrail Theory...

What I am though is a professional in a privileged position that has the time and inclination to ask questions and make hypothesis.

Like any equation there has to be balance... if I spot a bloody big swing in a somewhat standardized equation then I will be on it like a hound to blood.

There is indeed a variation in our climate that has been unaccounted for... I postulate that it has been caused by geo-engineering, Chemtrails just so happen to be the perfect medium by which to propagate such a mechanic.

It's not that I have gone onto the internet and read hookiepookie and bought into something.... this is a logical argument that can be resolved in a logical manor.

Korg.