Chemtrail Timelapse + Request for an Investigation of Documented Weather Mod

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:23 PM

network dude

Note to add: BTW...when i breathe, in the cold air, it freezes; and the cloud lingers in the air, all day. lol

edit on 19-2-2014 by WonderBoi because: (no reason given)

Is it -40 degrees when you do that? Because if it was, then yes, your cloud would linger. In fact, that very subject is mentioned in my post to you just above this. Perhaps you could respond to it?

You mean like this:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:28 PM
I saw proof myself last May. I was a at week long training conference in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mtns. of VA, maybe 75 miles SW of Washington DC. It was that very hot week of high 90 degree days. So at breakfast a group went outside and saw a checker board pattern of Chemtrails, three levels high, maybe starting at 2 miles high first level, 3-4 miles mid-level, and 5 miles the highest level, each level at exact 90 degree angles, E-W lower level, N-S middle and E-W again upper. Each level went from horizon to horizon with 8-10 chemrails lines spaced about 2 miles apart in a grid in each level. So a 3-D checker board pattern with the lowest obviously the oldest as the trials were dissipating and spreading out, the mid level starting to get shifted by winds, and the upper were all still tight and I could even see the large plan still making them in upper level.

Now I have science training and alternative theories were considered given the large volume of air traffic going to Dullas Airport.
but the tight and exact pattern, the levels and the easily seen time lapse evidence, all do not fit to commercial air traffic using levels over time like that. Seemed to me they were for a weather modification purpose as the most logical explanation and at a time when solar heating was a concern.
edit on 19-2-2014 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:32 PM

reply to post by network dude
Admit it, the word "chemical" confuses you. lol

So are you unwilling to communicate, or are you not mentally capable?

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by retsdeeps1

Seemed to me they were for a weather modification purpose as the most logical explanation.

And no other logical explanation could explain what you saw?

So I have to ask how do you know they were chemtrails?

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by blargo

Yes, a lot like that. In fact, you can prove the theory by catching some of the "snow" after it falls and leave it in the cold air. It it stays right there, then that is what contrails do as well, except they are up in the air. It it disapears after 2-10 minutes, then you can say the contrail theory is busted and anything that last longer than 10 minutes in the air must be a chemtrail.

(Logic would state that the frozen droplets will remain in the catch basin as long as the temperature is conducive for it to remain frozen.)

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by retsdeeps1

Why is it not possible that you saw a lot of air traffic in an area that was perfect for persistent contrail formation?

Clearly, airplanes fly in the directions you saw trails for.

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Aloysius the Gaul

He differentiates between geo-eng and this sub project called "solar radiation management" via "stratospheric particle injections." I think it's important to know the differences.


And given that solar radiation management IS Geo-engineering I'm curious to know the difference too....

Solar radiation management[2] (SRM) projects are a largely theoretical type of geoengineering which seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming.[3] Proposed examples include the creation of stratospheric sulfur aerosols.

-wiki page

Good catch! Perhaps the author was pointing out semantics to be able to go forward with asking for investigation. "The difference" was pointed out by the people denying the intent behind aerosol spraying, diversion perhaps.

I wanted to know the "difference" so that I could have a leg to stand on and try to understand writing that comes from the top - obviously they won't be using terms like chemtrails.

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:13 PM

It can be done from the fuel they use. Sure, they say it's regulated...but "they" are the ones who make the rules. People need to understand, this stuff is happening on a molecular level; which is smaller than this dot ---> .

The standard for Jet A1 is publically available - it is Def Std 91-91, currently at revision 7.

It is a legal requirement that all materials on civilian aircraft conform to the appropriate standards - so if you find some Jet A1 that does not meet this standard then you've found evidence of a potential crime. Or at least contamination that might require the whole batch of fuel be dumped - jet fuel contamination is a big deal.

Go fill you boots......

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Looking at one of those links I found this...

Millions of gallons of jet fuel are put into turbine-powered aircraft every day. One of the things that operators try to ensure is that their fuel is free from contamination. Contaminated fuel can cause significant damage to the aircraft and engine. Damage can range from fuel system corrosion, clogging of fuel filtration components, failure of aircraft fuel system instrumentation, and even stopping the fuel supply to the engines during flight. But with proper procedures in place, you can help prevent contaminated fuel from causing problems to your aircraft.

And also this...

Almost anything can cause particulate contamination from rags and bugs to deterioration of fuel system components like corrosion of metal parts or deterioration of rubber fuel cells and lines. Rust can be introduced through pipelines, storage tanks, fuel trucks, and drum containers. Dust and sand can be introduced through openings in tanks and from the use of fueling equipment that is not clean.

Fuel system screens and filters help collect particulates. These should be inspected and cleaned on a regular basis. Regular inspection ensures that any excessive particulate presence is investigated to the source of the contamination. Regular cleaning ensures that the filter elements do not become clogged. Two possibilities exist with clogged fuel filters. In filters with a bypass system, once the filter is clogged enough to cause the differential pressure to activate the spring mechanism, the fuel will no longer be filtered, but will instead bypass the filter altogether. This can cause failure of components downline. In non-bypass filters, the differential pressure that is built up could rupture the filter element and possibly generate even more particulate contamination.< br />

I wonder how a chemtrail believer is going to spin this?

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:13 PM

...And, in case you didn't know, salt is a chemical compound; and so is water.

In chemistry, salts are ionic compounds that can result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of related numbers of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge).

Sure, but salts are created through chemical bonding.

Virtually* all of the water (H2O) in clouds is NOT created by chemically bonding hydrogen and oxygen. The water in clouds comes from water in the atmosphere -- NOT free hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. The water (H2O) in clouds already existed as WATER (in vapor form) in the atmosphere, not as free hydrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere that became bonded.

So I'm not sure what your point is telling us that water is a chemical compound. So what if it is?

* Note: I say "virtually" because there is some small amount of hydorgen-oxygen bonding that can take place in the atmosphere -- but it is an extremely small amount, because it takes too much energy to bond hydrogen and oxygen to form water, and the amount of energy to do so on a large scale does not occur in nature in the atmosphere

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:31 PM

reply to post by totallackey

Just how do you propose someone take air samples at 32000ft?

There are planes designed specifically for this task. I believe Gulfstream may make a model designed specifically for this purpose.

I recently watched 2 videos of the 2006 Fairnborough & Biggin Hill airshows in the UK. My idea was to look at chemtrails because high quality cameras would be focussing on the sky, & its time of 2006.
Apart from the great shots (Mig 29 vertical stall & revrse loop incredible) the blue sky distance shots were perfect.
In them were yes, perfectly natural contrails dissapating about 10 lengths behind the plane. However, there were many lingering chemtrails in there as well. These were jets in the far distance & at altitude , not the display aircraft.

Did you see anything substantially different regarding these types of trails you saw in your video and that of the OP video? If so, care to link that video?

I also noticed how quickly the "smoke" from the display aircraft dissapates into the air- it being oil injected into/onto the exhausts of the jets/planes involved.

This was from 2006 & you can clearly spot the difference between contrails & chemtrails!

So, the oil injected in the afterburn dissipated quickly? What chemical do you suppose was injected in the trails left behind in the lingering trails? Please take a shot at answering this, and then go ask an expert aviator/mechanic for confirmation.

So I take it you are in the camp that water condensation cannot linger in the air at high altitude.

You cannot tell the difference between a contrail and chemtrail because the latter does not exist until such time as there is proof of existence.


I can tell the difference between a unicorn and a horse because one has horn on its head and the other does not. Further, I have drawings of unicorns and I have drawings of horses.


I (nor anyone else) cannot prove chemtrails do not exist. Let me repeat that once again, because I hope you can fathom the meaning...I (NOR ANYONE ELSE) CANNOT PROVE CHEMTRAILS DO NOT EXIST!

Chemmies need to prove they exist. And it is not even a standard of proof required in a criminal trial. No one needs to prove chemtrails beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, simply provide evidence to tilt the scales to a 51 percent level in favor of their existence. At that point, I will STFU. At that point, one of the largest settlements in the history of jurisprudence will have been made.

Not one pro-chemtrailer has ever addressed this point I raise, let alone the numerous others raised by others, such as Gaul/tsurfer/waynos/Uncinus/ND/Phage/
edit on 19-2-2014 by totallackey because: grammar
edit on 19-2-2014 by totallackey because: further content

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by retsdeeps1

It was that very hot week of high 90 degree days. So at breakfast a group went outside and saw a checker board pattern of Chemtrails, three levels high, maybe starting at 2 miles high first level, 3-4 miles mid-level, and 5 miles the highest level, each level at exact 90 degree angles, E-W lower level, N-S middle and E-W again upper.

I would appreciate it if you could, in any way, substantiate, the altitudes you provide in this post.

I seriously doubt you can.

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in