Cirrus clouds form from heavy metals and mineral dust

WonderBoi

Does it really matter what causes them? They're being MADE, for a reason. Some of you need to put the "conspiracies" aside and stick to the "science" of things; especially those that constantly comment on any chemtrail topic.

Some of us are trying to help folks understand the science that explains how they are made and why.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

And yet chemtrails/"clandestine geoengineering" are so utterly indistinguishable from nonsense - being as they are based on nothing more than assertion.

What's nonsense, imo, is to continue to tell the public that all is normal in our skies; that we've seen it all before; that it's gone on since the dawn of time; that water vapor from jet emissions creates grid lines which combine to cover the entire sky in NATO participating countries.

Perhaps you could give them some actual evidence it is happening then?

This is an interesting question because it is the reason I put up this thread and yet you have responded to that in only one post. Geoengineering of our atmosphere without our consent, using materials that are harmful, is, imo, beyond reckless. Particularly reckless if the aim is defense/aggression as in owning the weather and weather as a force multiplier.

But you all don't want to talk about secret geoengineering and how we might use the studies coming out, left and right, to prove that it is happening now.

How come you believe chemtrails exist then?

Because the sky is polluted and weather is out of control. Did you not read the excerpts from 'The Cirrus Project' wherein in the 1940's (1940's !) it was already determined that 2 pounds (2 pounds!) of silver iodide could have a profound effect on the weather in the entire (all of it!) continental U.S.

You just want to believe in miracles or phenomenal weather magic like outrageously persistent contrails. And you want everyone else to believe this fairy tale as well.

And you want to derail every thread that doesn't agree with nonsense and run every chemtrail believer out of Dodge. You and your pack of friends.

Further...I have tried to come up with 'nice' reasons why you all would do this rather than treating the subject for what it is: and that is: VERY CONCERNING. But the only thing that keeps popping up is: you all are majorly vested. Stop telling people that a pig is a goat. Stop trivializing the impact of geoengineering gone wild.

And, as far as a pseudo-science for outrageously persistent contrails, I could come up with a better one than the official bureau of mis-information has come up with but all it would do would be to step on different corporate toes. However, it would be as close to truth as you all's contrail science which is: nowhere near it.

reply to post by network dude


I read your post (Dec. 2, 2013 @5:35am) and don't want to be blunt or short BUT you seem to feel that persistent contrails are some kind of a panacea. A pill to cure all ills. They're not. They're a symptom.

And by the by, persistent contrails, in my area, rarely precede a frontal system. And I had the pleasure of observing persistent contrails from an area that has NO overhead traffic and is on NO flight path with no airport within 60 miles down the mountain. This happened during one of my early excursions into this forum wherein someone had given me one of the flight programs to try out.

I have a question for you: why do you think that grid lines leading to completely overcast skies are ok? Are they ok because you think you can explain them? Tell me true, why are they ok?

P.S.: even though you earlier commended me on my "new angle" with this thread, you don't seem to want to engage it. I will take whatever you have to say on that subject very seriously and consider it most carefully.

luxordelphi
What's nonsense, imo, is to continue to tell the public that all is normal in our skies; that we've seen it all before; that it's gone on since the dawn of time; that water vapor from jet emissions creates grid lines which combine to cover the entire sky in NATO participating countries.

that's the 2nd time you mentioned NATO - what has NATO got to do with it?

Persistent contrails and "chemtrails" are reported all around the world in non-NATO countries too.....

This is an interesting question because it is the reason I put up this thread and yet you have responded to that in only one post. Geoengineering of our atmosphere without our consent, using materials that are harmful, is, imo, beyond reckless. Particularly reckless if the aim is defense/aggression as in owning the weather and weather as a force multiplier.

But you all don't want to talk about secret geoengineering and how we might use the studies coming out, left and right, to prove that it is happening now.

I am entirely happy that you should prove that it is happening now from eth studies coming out.

Feel free to do so at any time.....

Because the sky is polluted and weather is out of control.

Yes, and yes - pollution is certainly real.

And the weather has NEVER been UNDER control......sometimes we think we can make it rain a bit more than it would otherwise is all we can do.

Did you not read the excerpts from 'The Cirrus Project' wherein in the 1940's (1940's !) it was already determined that 2 pounds (2 pounds!) of silver iodide could have a profound effect on the weather in the entire (all of it!) continental U.S.

Yeah - and as it turns out they were wrong - and subsequently project stormfury also failed to achieve anything.

You just want to believe in miracles or phenomenal weather magic like outrageously persistent contrails. And you want everyone else to believe this fairy tale as well.

again - what constitutes an "outrageously persistent contrail"?

You keep failing to address this question.

And why is not no "magic" as opposed to physics?

Clouds can last for hours or days - so why can't contrails made up of the same stuff??

And you want to derail every thread that doesn't agree with nonsense and run every chemtrail believer out of Dodge. You and your pack of friends.

I would much rather chemtrail believers stopped being taken in by the hoax. whether they are in Dodge or anywhere else is irrelevant.

Stop trivializing the impact of geoengineering gone wild.

How can something for which there is no actual evidence be trivialized??

And, as far as a pseudo-science for outrageously persistent contrails, I could come up with a better one than the official bureau of mis-information has come up with but all it would do would be to step on different corporate toes. However, it would be as close to truth as you all's contrail science which is: nowhere near it.

so you are saying you COULD explain what you mean by outrageously persistent contrails - but you are deliberately refusing to do so?

If you truly believe this crime is happening then why are you concealing the evidence you have??????

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

They found 2 days with appropriate conditions in a 10 day period. On the 2 days they had no problems making contrails. On the other days conditions were not appropriate.

No. There were 2 days out of 10 days of appropriate conditions where they were able to produce a contrail. You put up a document that didn't contain that information. I had read the original, unedited, version.

But I'm not surprised that you put up the edited version.

Watervapor is invisible - why would anyone say a visible trail is made of water vapor?? Contrails are ICE CRYSTALS.

Oh please!!! There are many times that I have read that contrails are 'just water vapor.' In this forum I read it. Jet emissions are highly toxic. In and of themselves, they are toxic. In and of themselves, at 30,000 feet, they have a profound effect on the weather. On the ground they have a profound effect on mammals by passing the blood brain barrier.

"Outrageously persistent contrails"? No - I have no idea what that means - why don't you define it?

There was, on this site, relating to this forum, about 2 or maybe 3 weeks ago, a momentary hesitation. But old habits die hard.

As far as your comments about science go: dungsteresque. I have had the good fortune of knowing and speaking with a lot of very smart people in a number of different fields. One thing that they always tried to convey was that it can be understood. And that someone who understands their own field can put it simply enough for a child to understand. And that if this can't be done, it's dung. And the first thing that these people say is that there are many mysteries and many things unexplained and not understood. They never talk in absolutes (i.e. persistent contrails) the way you do.

luxordelphi
No. There were 2 days out of 10 days of appropriate conditions where they were able to produce a contrail. You put up a document that didn't contain that information. I had read the original, unedited, version.

But I'm not surprised that you put up the edited version.

the exact wording, unedited, is:



source - as I said - in the 10 days allotted only 2 had suitable conditions.

You accused me of lying - I think you should apologise for that.

Oh please!!! There are many times that I have read that contrails are 'just water vapor.'

I am sure you have read that - however as we both know people often say clouds are made of water vapour - and as we both know they are not. they are made of water droplets or ice crystals.

You have apparently studied enough to know the difference and should be able to appreciate it by now.

Jet emissions are highly toxic. In and of themselves, they are toxic.

they sure are.

In and of themselves, at 30,000 feet, they have a profound effect on the weather.

so you keep saying....and so you keep failing to back up with evidence.

On the ground they have a profound effect on mammals by passing the blood brain barrier.

Why only on the ground??

"Outrageously persistent contrails"? No - I have no idea what that means - why don't you define it?

There was, on this site, relating to this forum, about 2 or maybe 3 weeks ago, a momentary hesitation. But old habits die hard.

Is that supposed to be a definition??

As far as your comments about science go: dungsteresque. I have had the good fortune of knowing and speaking with a lot of very smart people in a number of different fields. One thing that they always tried to convey was that it can be understood. And that someone who understands their own field can put it simply enough for a child to understand. And that if this can't be done, it's dung. And the first thing that these people say is that there are many mysteries and many things unexplained and not understood.

Yes there are many mysteries.

Contrails are not one of them.....except to hoaxers, the scientifically illiterate, or the willfully ignorant.

They never talk in absolutes (i.e. persistent contrails) the way you do.

Oh I bet they freely talk about them when they do exist - and I can freely talk about absolutes when they do exist too:

- I have NEVER seen a "chemtrail" that behaved in any manner different to how a contrail can behave
- I have NEVER seen any verifiable evidence that "chemtrails" exist
- Contrails will ALWAYS form and persist for exactly as long as atmospheric conditions allow them to.

luxordelphi
reply to post by network dude

 

I read your post (Dec. 2, 2013 @5:35am) and don't want to be blunt or short BUT you seem to feel that persistent contrails are some kind of a panacea. A pill to cure all ills. They're not. They're a symptom.

Persistent contrails are something that can and does happen when planes fly and conditions are right. They are unavoidable and as has been said, a necessary evil. If you want them to stop, don't let planes fly.

And by the by, persistent contrails, in my area, rarely precede a frontal system. And I had the pleasure of observing persistent contrails from an area that has NO overhead traffic and is on NO flight path with no airport within 60 miles down the mountain. This happened during one of my early excursions into this forum wherein someone had given me one of the flight programs to try out.

If you see contrails, yet have no overhead traffic, (you must live on a small island in the south pacific) You can look at the jet stream and see how it might bring the contrails in with the clouds as it flows. I can assure you that planes did make the contrails somewhere.

I have a question for you: why do you think that grid lines leading to completely overcast skies are ok? Are they ok because you think you can explain them? Tell me true, why are they ok?

Because they exist. They are ice crystals. Clouds. If I had a choice to either have them, or not have them, I would vote that we don't have them and enjoy beautiful cloudless sunny days with unicorn rides and free healthcare for all, but in the world I live in, (the real one) we don't have that choice. Airplanes have to move people, and in order to do that, they have to fly and sometimes leave trails in the sky.

P.S.: even though you earlier commended me on my "new angle" with this thread, you don't seem to want to engage it. I will take whatever you have to say on that subject very seriously and consider it most carefully.

I was very sincere, as this forum is always inundated with the very same arguments all the time. If you bring up new angles, then the same old debunking won't work, and we will all have to dig in and learn new things.

Now, please answer this. Why do you feel that contrails that persist are no longer contrails, and how long can a contrail be around before it must be a chemtrail? This is a continuous sticking point with your comments and I want to know why you cling to that, despite the science that clearly explains it.

Thanks