If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are

originally posted by: mrthumpy
The article failed to mention it and you failed to investigate it

That's right. And at that time I didn't care much about investigating it - I was in the middle of writing these (in addition to my job):

A New Preonic Model for the Composition of All Known Matter and Energy
The expanded Phoenix/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy

You talk about investigative minds? Well my area of investigation is different than yours. Deal with it.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
And yet the paper itself tells you it isn't for real scenarios and is fictional

Definition of a scenario:

an imagined or projected sequence of events, especially any of several detailed plans or possibilities:

source: dictionary.reference.com...

In a plan, a scenario is by definition "fictional", since it is an ensemble of postulations. When a general plans an attack in a war, and postulates a scenario, him postulating the scenario doesn't make the war "fictive". Your logic makes no sense. You bash the whole thing based solely on the fact that it contains illustrative scenarios.

And back to the topic of the thread...the link in the OP is a fallacy and they are contrails, care to show me anything that backs the claim chemtrails exist?

As a matter of fact I just realized this the other day: water condensation is, by definition, a chemical.

answers.yahoo.com...

So I would not be surprised if some sources includes "water condensation" trails under the definition of "chemtrails", especially if these trails also contain aluminium, barium, etc as most contrails do.

Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: Imagewerx

Imagewerx,

If you guys get so technical about engines structure and chemical reactions due to weather conditions I can't but take notes and keep reading.

What I am gathering after the several explanations I received is that generating contrails as result of a natural process made the introduction of chemical trails very comfortable, as any plane expert would think that is a normal emission.
So when I see a trail straight and short, or a see a trail which is actually spreading in front of my eyes, covering the sky and lingering up there for a while, I should be led to think that it is a matter of different humidity, altitude, engine model, fuel, etc...right?

Anything coughed out of that pipe, as long as white and invisible, would go unnoticed.

Why when you see a trail though? Why would it be visible at all? Given that only water ice makes a trail visible and that jet exhaust is ever present when a plane is in flight and that only a percentage of flights result in visible trails due to prevalent conditions, IF you were right about chemtrails, associating them with visible trails would be a total fallacy.

No?

a reply to: swanne

For someone who discusses theoretical physics, you must use critical thought, no?

If you do use critical thought, then ponder this. If you fully understand what a contrail is, what clouds are, and the science behind them, how does one look at this:


And say it's a chemtrail?

In a nut shell, that is the only hang up I have about this theory. Much like aliens from Niburu, they could exist, but logic tells me that as of now, no proof exists for Niburu, or little blue men who live there.

originally posted by: network dude
If you do use critical thought, then ponder this. If you fully understand what a contrail is, what clouds are, and the science behind them, how does one look at this:

And say it's a chemtrail?

I personally see it as a picture of contrails, here forming a group of cirrus because of the low temperature of their location.

But as I said earlier, it is possible some "chemtrail-theorists" simply stretch the derfinition of what is a "chemical" (since "chem" in chemtrail after all does stand for "chemical"). Since contrails were confirmed to contain water (technically a chemical element), but also traces of aluminium (chemical element), barium (chemical element), etc., then it is quite possible many " chemtrail-theorists" would consider condensation trails as "chemtrails", since by definition they contain chemical elements. I know, it's twisted, but it would not be the first time someone stretches a definition beyond its intended usage.

a reply to: swanne

When did aluminum and barium get into contrails? As far as I knew, that has never been proven.

If you go with the H20 is a chemical, therefore... then there is no validity to any of the chemtrail theory. Everything is a chemtrail. From a fart to a contrail.

To keep this conspiracy theory in tact, it needs to be defined and clarified.

But the tactic of moving the goal posts in this discussion is all too familiar. (not accusing you of that, just making the point)

a reply to: network dude

In agreement with you here.

you guys are unbelievable I really hope you do believe what your saying because in reality it's all bs


geoengineering

Aluminum/alumina, among other toxic metals, is showing up in countless rain tests around the world. The amount of aluminum, barium, and other metals in these rain/snow tests is always high and often completely off the charts. Snow tests from Mt Shasta in Northern California were toxic beyond belief. This area of the Pacific Northwest was thought to be a pristine water source. Dozens of rain samples taken in this region from numerous individuals were tested at the State certified lab in Northern California and showed shocking results without exception. Former US Forest Service Biologist Francis Mangles has confirmed the alarming heavy metal contamination with his own testing. Snow tests taken from the side of Mt. Shasta showed aluminum content as high as 61,000 PPB. (parts per billion). This level of aluminum in the snow is tens of thousands of times anything that might be considered “normal background” contamination.

geoengineering

Of all the challenges we face, the single biggest leap we could take in the right direction is to expose and halt the climate engineering. To do so would effectively pull the curtain back from the power structure and fully expose them for what they are, clinically insane and murderous beyond comprehension.

link
this is really whats going on in this thread

Many that claim to be in the fight to expose and stop climate engineering are forcefully and slanderously pushing the exact narrative given to them by the very power structure which is itself behind the geoengineering. Those that are pushing the well funded disinformation also spend much of their time slandering any who dare to dispute their unsupportable and incorrect conclusions. Posting inaccurate and false data does much harm in the fight against geoengineering. It costs our cause much credibility and creates much division. This being said, the more of us there are who do look at solid and verifiable data from proven sources, and post the same, the better we can advance the credibility of the anti-climate engineering movement

disinfo
Hope you all sleep well at night...

a reply to: TWILITE22

Dane would be very proud of you. Don't forget to donate. It's in the upper right hand portion of his site.

a reply to: network dude

really? ignore the science and testing that's been done this is real and happening

do you guys have Christmas parties as well?

a reply to: TWILITE22

There can be areas of sky that are blue and areas that have clouds due to the micro-local atmospheric conditions being conducive to the invisible water vapor in the blue-sky air condensing out to form visible visible water droplets -- i.e., clouds. that's why you could have a cloud next to blue sky

The same goes for contrails. There could be differences in the micro-local atmospheric conditions (difference only a few feet apart) that could be conducive to trail production or not conducive to trail production.

a reply to: TWILITE22

How is a video of an aircraft making intermittent contrails a smoking gun and is proof of atmospheric spraying? I'm not aware of any ground based piece of equipment anywhere on earth that can tell the chemical composition of something through 7 or 8 miles of atmospheric pollution,so this how can this guy with all his alleged special powers tell this by just looking at it?

It's been roughly 20 years since they allegedly started 'spraying' (even though I saw this happening some 40 years ago in the 1970s),do YOU really believe that in 20 years no one has been able to prove that these scary white lines in the sky are anything other than ice crystals? Common sense tells me that if there was anything in these claims of all these harmful chemicals being sprayed at or onto us,some one would have proven it by now as it's such a big issue to some people.

Also the reason why some aircraft contrails seem to be 'switched' on and off as in that video can and has been explained countless times by very simple meteorlogical facts,not internet b/s.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Look I understand everyone has a job to do but I've witnessed two planes flying one leaving chemtrails and one not, same conditions that day.So please give me the courtesy that I actually know what I'm seeing. do you really believe what your saying?
I don't think you do.You and your families and all the rest will not be immune to the chemicals that are being sprayed.
Your being sprayed as well!!

As for human health, the incidence of Alzheimer’s, Autism, Dementia and many other serious illnesses such as Morgellons has increased dramatically since the spraying started in earnest in the 1990’s. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why the ingredients of aerosols sprayed around the clock in such huge quantities are poisonous to very many life systems including our own.

we're heading towards extinction at this rate.
may you be blessed with good health...


better yet go get your blood tested you might be surprised

originally posted by: TWILITE22
a reply to: network dude

really? ignore the science and testing that's been done this is real and happening

do you guys have Christmas parties as well?

why do find this source to be credible? What is the quality that convinces you?

a reply to: TWILITE22

Why wouldn't you see one plane making a contrail and one not doing so? The atmosphere is not uniform and it's physically impossible for aircraft to occupy the same space as well as being illegal for them to be within 1000ft of each other. Why would you even expect conditions across the sky to be the same? Have you honestly never seen clouds separated by blue sky? Come on dude, we're all out of pre school aren't we?

a reply to: TWILITE22

How can you possibly know what you're seeing when it's nothing more than a white smudge 7 or 8 miles above your head? If you really believe you can tell the difference then you really aren't in touch with reality.

originally posted by: TWILITE22
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Look I understand everyone has a job to do but I've witnessed two planes flying one leaving chemtrails and one not, same conditions that day.So please give me the courtesy that I actually know what I'm seeing. do you really believe what your saying?

Two planes, observed from the ground I assume? It's very likely that these planes were at very different altitudes.

a reply to: TWILITE22

I once saw a cloud in one part of the sky and none in another. Does that make the cloud I saw suspect? Was it a "chem cloud"?

Look, I get that you are all into this stuff because it seems cool. But if you try just a tiny bit to comprehend clouds, contrails, and the verifiable science that explains them, you will come to realize how silly this aspect of what Dane is selling you.

I don't have a donate button anywhere. If i did, would it make you trust me more, or less?

living under some of the most congested skies on the planet, I regularly see commercial airliners leaving contrails whilst those in other parts of the sky or at different altitudes do not. And often aircraft that leave a contrail through one part of the sky but not another.

As an amateur meteorologist I expect this. But I can understand why others who (not unreasonably) dont know much about atmospheric processes wonder why this is happening. Especially as, if they are not as obsessed with clouds as am, they are not watching the sky every day ....

The question is: do they believe what meterorologists tell them in explanation? Or do they refuse to believe that meteorologists know what they are talking about, are all either idiots or in on the conspiracy, and instead trust an anonymous person on an internet conspiracy website who claims it is something else altogether ....

originally posted by: TWILITE22
a reply to: network dude

really? ignore the science and testing that's been done this is real and happening

What science and testing that's been done shows that chemtrails exist??