Chemtrails over the South West of the UK

a reply to: IronNuts

By that thinking all contrails are chemtrails. Why even acknowledge contrails if they are chemtrails? If it's not hydrogen or oxygen it's a chemtrails, or is water a chemical?

a reply to: network dude

But your taking one element of the theory and focusing soley on that. Logical for sure, but not in anyway disproving the chemtrail theory.

Lets pretend for arguments sake that i present a theory that the reason people are being to feel Ill, the reason birds died in mass and fell from the sky etc... is because of chemtrails. These are chemicals stealthly distributed throughout specific parts of the map for various reasons. Now we know this is very much a possibility. I did not say a tree unrooted itself from the ground and attempted to mate with my porch.

Now lets say someone comes to me and says "They are Contrails not Chemtrails"... What part of this would sway me from my original theory? This theory has caught on and other people may have started all kinds of disinformation that veers away from the starting ideal; Yy original theory though was about chemicals being "dropped/spread" across certain area's, I never said the contrails themselves contained the chemicals. Whether you drop chemicals from an aircraft or not you will leave Contrails, they are unrelated in terms of proof and dismissive proof.

a reply to: RevolutionAnon I am an aircraft technician, I have worked on rotor wing, fixed wing, and variably rotor wing aircraft. Everything from a military attacker to a KC-10. I have torn the engines apart and rebuilt them on 2 of those aircraft, and I have done extensive avionics modifications on several others, both military and civilian. Never in my job have I ever come across a device, structure, or system that intentionally produces a visible and hazardous chemical trail for the sole purpose of killing or poisoning a population. The contrail is simply a by product from JP-8 being burned off in the exhaust stage of a turbo fan engine at 35,000 ft. Besides, if the military were to be spraying # from an aircraft, it wouldn't be visible.

a reply to: network dude

Yes but even contrails contain hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

What does napalm have to do with anything? I mentioned about agent orange which if you do some reading was the defoliant that they sprayed to give the Vietnamese less places to hide.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: AVtech34

See, I am glad your an Aircracft technician because you just helped to prove my point. All you did was state:

1. You have never seen a device created to do such a thing as this. I believe you, but if i was a chemtrail enthusiast one person saying they have never seen such a device is inconsequential to me.
1a. I know the technology exists for such a device and that it has been used before many years ago when technology was at a more primitive stage.
2. Again i see what your trying to achieve: The contrail is simply a by product from JP-8 being burned off in the exhaust stage of a turbo fan engine at 35,000 ft. Besides, if the military were to be spraying # from an aircraft, it wouldn't be visible.
2a. Your right it would not be visible to the naked eye. And contrails exist regardless of chemical expulsion. So getting back to an original point made what seems like a lifetime ago, Contrails do not help prove or disprove the chemical Trail theory.

Please say this is finished..

a reply to: RevolutionAnon

So by your argument, someone could say that unicorns exist and we would just have to accept it? Just because no one has seen one doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Can you prove conclusively that they dont exist?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Might be a slight difference as volume and weight of your methane compared to what is used for seeding will vary. However if you want to act like a child and postulate things like you are then I will just ignore you.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: IronNuts

I was just using your logic of "anything going into the contrail is a chemtrail" argument.

a reply to: Shiloh7

How do you know they are "Chem trails"....and not everyday plane CON-trails?

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Why consider them contrails? For the fact that water is condensing to help form the trail, hence contrail.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: TerryDon79

My argument was that if chemcials are in a contrail then it may also make that contrail a chemtrail. Not sure why that is too hard to depict from what I have written so far.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: IronNuts

That would technically make every contrail a chemtrail. But then you're just broadening the conspiracy term of chemtrail to fit every type of exhaust from every type of vehicle.

But they are chemtrails cos they have chemical by products in right? Just trying to understand your point.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Not sure he remembers saying that.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
But they are chemtrails cos they have chemical by products in right? Just trying to understand your point.

I think that's exactly what he's alluding to.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes you should be concerned about the exhaust fumes from cars especially in large cities. I am not moving goal posts as much as showing more spectrum to the conversation. Some times people put on blinders and then miss the little stuff.

Reminds me of the fire hall that always washed the tires on the fire trucks when they got back to the station. One rookie finally asked why not wash the whole truck? He then did some research and found out that the reason they only washed the tires was back in the horse drawn days the tires would be covered in dung. They had just been doing what they were told to do for 70 years without questioning...

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: TerryDon79

Youd don't have to accept it, but you cannot disregard it either. You can have an opinion on the matter, but declaring unicorns are non existent is unprovable therefore just opinion by definition.

I personally, and this of course is my opinion, believe unicorns did exist, in that there were creatures of almost identical biological make-up to a horse with some sort of a spike protruding from a hardened skull as a form of defence that was eventually no longer need, or that specific species of horse died out. If i ever proved this to be true then, technically, i was right and a horned horse did exist and, even though it would not be magical, the best way to describe it would be by using the word unicorn.

I am a strong believer in all fiction having a foundation in fact, no matter how relative or distant the relation.

a reply to: network dude

cloud seeding is real. Crop dusting is real. Cow farts are real. All three examples are of a chemical being released into the air. If you call all three chemtrails, that is your right, but it doesn't make the white lines formed behind airplanes at 30,000 anything other than contrails made of ice particles.

Not too sure why you are trying to put words in my mouth but that is childish. "If you call all three chemtrails" I did not mention crop dusting or cow farts in any of my prior posts. Are you a politician?

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: IronNuts You're also failing to address a blatantly obvious flaw. Where are the storage tanks for this spray located? In order for these aircraft to "spray" the chemicals for several hundred miles, they'd need several thousand gallons of the crap. The support systems required to house these chemicals would take up massive amounts of space. With all the air crashes over the years, no aircraft has ever been recovered with said system on board. You could argue that the NTSB simply removed it. Or that that aircraft didn't have it. Or that they aren't even civilian aircraft or typical military ones but some black ops plane flying. All would be false. It is simply a logistical impossibility to install this kind of system on a commuter or military aircraft. Furthermore, why pipe it to the engines so the 1600 degree exhaust will just atomize it?