I think I know What Chemtrails are... and it's worse than you can imagine!

Blarneystoner


You claim that no pilots have come forward. Are you certain? Have you researched it? The fact is that they are speaking out. Just do a little research.

Please feel free to enlighten me. A link would suffice.

If there is any actual pilot testimony why don't you post it?

I've been looking long and hard at the chemtrail conspiracy for a few years now, I've done quite a bit of research, and I've come across nothing that doesn't require a leap of faith, on my behalf, to believe. What I have learned about the chemtrail conspiracy is that its typical advocates haven't got a clue about aviation, meteorology or science in general, are prone to be suspicious of practically everything outside their small spheres of existence, people who usually don't need much convincing, a youtube video for example can change their worldview in about 5 minutes. That is all.

I haven't got my head buried in the sand. I simply require that oh so elusive thing called evidence.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Where is it taking place? What evidence do you have?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Haha obvious troll is obvious.
And if you are serious I am seriously worried about your mental health.
How are anyone supposed to prove a negative?
And even if we could, how does that In any way shape or form prove the existence of chemtrails?

Blarneystoner

Maybe I know more than you think. The point is that the mentality is there in the government to allow for such things.

Yes it may well be, I'm not disputing that, but that isn't the point. there may be a tendency for scientists to try to create Jurrassic Park in real life, but that does not prove it has happened, see?

The fact that some entity within the US Gov thought it would be a great idea to spray chemicals on the general populace without consent speaks volumes as to the mindset of those in power.

Yes, but because the MO of that operation was completely different (low level, not visible and growing etc etc) it has nothing to do with 'chemtrails' at all.

I know the difference between persisitant contrails and chemtrails.

Well, at least you appreciate that there ARE persistant contrails, so thats a big improvement on many who come here. Can you expand on that difference then?

But if you look deeply enough you'll find evidence; maybe not direct evidence but certainly indirect such as this:

GeoEngineering Watch - Extensive List of PATENTS

If the means to spray from aircraft was never in doubt, how do patents prove anything? The reality of spraying is not in question, examples abound for both fair and foul reasons as I said before. I am just addressing chemtrails however.

There is a culture of denial in the ranks of commercial pilots who have flown these chem spraying missions. They're aware of what is happening but it is extremely lucritive for them and they simply keep their mouths shut.

Or there is a culture of denial amongst people who know what they talking about? How can you say they have flown these missions? Where is your info coming from and how do you know it is reliable? Why do you suppose Airlines are involved at all?

Don't be naive, the US Gov and others have performed unethical experiments in the past and they actually feel justified claiming to work for the greater good.

Naive? As I said before, the MO of past experiments bears NO resemblance to 'chemtrails'. Naivety would be believing someone who claimed it did. When one truly understands contrails it is obvious why chemtrails are nonsense.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion but it has failed to convince me that chem spraying isn't taking place over our heads.

I have said NOTHING about whether or not anyone is doing any chem spraying. They may well be, I personally think probably not, but that is beside the point. This is where my comment that you dont know what your talking about is justified.You didnt pay attention to what i was saying.

seabhac-rua

Blarneystoner


You claim that no pilots have come forward. Are you certain? Have you researched it? The fact is that they are speaking out. Just do a little research.

Please feel free to enlighten me. A link would suffice.

If there is any actual pilot testimony why don't you post it?

I've been looking long and hard at the chemtrail conspiracy for a few years now, I've done quite a bit of research, and I've come across nothing that doesn't require a leap of faith, on my behalf, to believe. What I have learned about the chemtrail conspiracy is that it's typical advocates haven't got a clue about aviation, meteorology or science in general, are prone to be suspicious of practically everything outside their small spheres of existence, people who usually don't need much convincing, a youtube video for example can change their worldview in about 5 minutes. That is all.

I haven't got my head buried in the sand. I simply require that oh so elusive thing called evidence.

edit on 23-10-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

For the past 35 years, Project Censored has published an annual collection of the top 25 censored news stories. In the 2012 book edition, the article, Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, ranks as the 9th most censored story in the United States.

Link to the article - Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails (Revised)

The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.

In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.

Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company that:

“contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material

"...contains 18 claims to reduce global warming..."

This is exactly what the OP is talking about. Continue to deny if you will but it doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

I don't know if it's beneficial or not.

So how can you be convinced if you don't know the purpose of what you want to make people aware of?

I think it's unethical.

How could you possibly think this when you say you don't know the purpose, you don't know whether its beneficial or not so how can you say its unethical?

reply to post by waynos


See above...

InhaleExhale
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

I don't know if it's beneficial or not.

So how can you be convinced if you don't know the purpose of what you want to make people aware of?

I think it's unethical.

How could you possibly think this when you say you don't know the purpose, you don't know whether its beneficial or not so how can you say its unethical?

...because it's being done without public knowledge. You don't think that's unethical?

I'm fairly certain that most of the chem spraying is climate control related but I don't know for sure..

Link to the article - Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails (Revised)

reply to post by Blarneystoner


You could have just linked to thread on ATS supporting Chemtrails to prove your point.


Ridiculous

reply to post by Blarneystoner

...because it's being done without public knowledge. You don't think that's unethical?

I think you are a little confused, are you a member of the public?

So you are not aware of this happening then? Why try make others aware of something your are convinced is happening but your not really aware of whats happening or why its happening?


Public knowledge?

You mean public approval, not knowledge right?

Otherwise I need to get of this train.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


And do you fully understand the link you provided?
They talk the exact same debunked stuff that chemmies here spout.

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

Knowing that you comprehend contrails and persistent contrails, how do you justify using a source that even you admit is inaccurate?

They speak of cloud seeding like it's some bombshell. Any idiot knows cloud seeding has nothing to do with the white lines in the sky.

So I will ask this one more time. Since you comprehend persistent contrails, could you explain what a chemtrail is and how you go about identifying one. This is not a trick question.

lol... you guys are just ignoring the evidence. Arguing symantics and pointing to "ridiculous" efforts only reinforces my beliefs. None of you has offered refutes to the actual meat of the issue.

Yes... I am a member of the public. No... disclosure has not been made to the public in any official capacity.

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:

“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

It's beyond mine or anyone elses ability to make you all undestand when you blatently deny the evidence.... "apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability."

It doesn't get much more plain than that...

Ask yourself - why would such an apparatus be needed? It's function is limited to extremely narrow applications.

I'd love to stick around and answer your questions but it's time for lunch.

Blarneystoner

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:

“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

It's beyond mine or anyone elses ability to make you all undestand when you blatently deny the evidence.... "apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability."

OK, so why don't we see contrails that last 1 to 2 weeks? I have never seen one. So either this patent doesn't work, or it was never built. Just point me to the manufacturing facility for this.

And why to you keep ignoring the basic question I asked?

Blarneystoner

"...contains 18 claims to reduce global warming..."

This is exactly what the OP is talking about. Continue to deny if you will but it doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

Actually, it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that is happening

The OP has failed to provide any evidence that such proposed geoengineering techniques have ever been properly tested, let alone put into operation on a massive global scale. Nor has he explained why any such proposed geoengineering techniques would be visible from the ground, let alone manifest as something looking identical to normal contrails. Nor, indeed, how and why such geoengineering techniques, if being undertaken, are done in a manner so secret that the very scientists proposing such techniques, studying the possible consequences of them and, indeed, all their thousands of colleagues around the world studying all aspects of the atmosphere, are entirely oblivious to what is going on .....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

Of course, you would never think to actually look up the patent, would you? "1 to 2 weeks". Hilarious.
Here it is, maybe you can find the part that says that such a contrail can be produced?
The patent is for a device used for target practice.

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.

www.google.com...

It's a pod that would be attached to a towed target vehicle. Something like this:
www.peostri.army.mil...

50 USC Chapter 32 has a lot of evidence of chemical or biological testing being done if it's in the interest of national security. Or in the case of a national emergency. The United states has been in a state of emergency since 911!

You can find the above image on page 33 at this link.
us-code.vlex.com...

"50 USC 1512 - Sec. 1512. Transportation, open air testing, and disposal; Presidential determination; report to Congress; notice to Congress and State Governors"

"§1512. Transportation, open air testing, and disposal; Presidential determination; report to Congress; notice to Congress and State Governors"

"None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act may be used for the transportation of any lethal chemical or any biological warfare agent to or from any military installation in the United States, or the open air testing of any such agent within the United States, or the disposal of any such agent within the United States until the following procedures have been implemented:"

"(1) the Secretary of Defense (hereafter referred to in this chapter as the “Secretary”) has determined that the transportation or testing proposed to be made is necessary in the interests of national security;"

"(2) the Secretary has brought the particulars of the proposed transportation, testing, or disposal to the attention of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who in turn may direct the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service and other qualified persons to review such particulars with respect to any hazards to public health and safety which such transportation, testing, or disposal may pose and to recommend what precautionary measures are necessary to protect the public health and safety;"

"(3) the Secretary has implemented any precautionary measures recommended in accordance with paragraph (2) above (including, where practicable, the detoxification of any such agent, if such agent is to be transported to or from a military installation for disposal): Provided, however, That in the event the Secretary finds the recommendation submitted by the Surgeon General would have the effect of preventing the proposed transportation, testing, or disposal, the President may determine that overriding considerations of national security require such transportation, testing, or disposal be conducted. Any transportation, testing, or disposal conducted pursuant to such a Presidential determination shall be carried out in the safest practicable manner, and the President shall report his determination and an explanation thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as far in advance as practicable; and"

"(4) the Secretary has provided notification that the transportation, testing, or disposal will take place, except where a Presidential determination has been made: (A) to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least 10 days before any such transportation will be commenced and at least 30 days before any such testing or disposal will be commenced; (B) to the Governor of any State through which such agents will be transported, such notification to be provided appropriately in advance of any such transportation."

"Riot Control Agents"

"Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XII, §1232, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3468, provided that:"

“(a) Restatement of Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that riot control agents are not chemical weapons and that the President may authorize their use as legitimate, legal, and non-lethal alternatives to the use of force that, as provided in Executive Order No. 11850 (40 Fed. Reg. 16187) [set out below] and consistent with the resolution of ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, may be employed by members of the Armed Forces in war in defensive military modes to save lives, including the illustrative purposes cited in Executive Order No. 11850."

“(b) Report Required.—"

“(1) In general.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 6, 2006], the President shall submit to Congress a report on the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces."

“(2) Content.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall include—"

“(A) a description of all regulations, doctrines, training materials, and any other information related to the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces;"

“(B) a description of how the material described in subparagraph (A) is consistent with United States policy on the use of riot control agents;"

“(C) a description of the availability of riot control agents, and the means to use them, to members of the Armed Forces, including members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan;"

"(D) a description of the frequency and circumstances of the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces since January 1, 1992, and a summary of views held by commanders of United States combatant commands as to the utility of the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces when compared with alternatives;"

“(E) a general description of steps taken or planned to be taken by the Department of Defense to clarify the circumstances under which riot control agents may be used by members of the Armed Forces; and"

“(F) a brief explanation of the continuing validity of Executive Order No. 11850 [set out below] under United States law."

us-code.vlex.com...

50 USC 1516 - Sec. 1516. Delivery systems

"§1516. Delivery systems"

"None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act shall be used for the procurement of delivery systems specifically designed to disseminate lethal chemical or any biological warfare agents, or for the procurement of delivery system parts or components specifically designed for such purpose, unless the President shall certify to the Congress that such procurement is essential to the safety and security of the United States."
us-code.vlex.com..."

So if the president certifies to congress it's essential, than full speed ahead with death from above!

50 USC 1515 - Sec. 1515. Suspension; Presidential authorization

"§1515. Suspension; Presidential authorization"

"After November 19, 1969, the operation of this chapter, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by the President during the period of any war declared by Congress and during the period of any national emergency declared by Congress or by the President."
us-code.vlex.com...

reply to post by Phage

Did you miss this part of the description?

The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose

Other type powder compositions can also be used with the apparatus described herein. For example, various powder particles which reflect electromagnetic radiation can be dispensed as a chaff or the like from the contrail generator.

Obviously many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described.

reply to post by Mikeultra

you do know they are discussing chemical agents used in chemical warfare right? Like the stuff that we almost bombed Syria over?

What does any of that have to do with white lines in the sky?

Unification of the chemtrail conspiracy will NEVER happen.

network dude
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

you do know they are discussing chemical agents used in chemical warfare right? Like the stuff that we almost bombed Syria over?

What does any of that have to do with white lines in the sky?

Unification of the chemtrail conspiracy will NEVER happen.

In that mass of information there is mention of riot control purposes. Think lithium! Why do you think there are no massive protests in the U.S.? Because we're being dosed with fluoride and lithium to keep everyone sedated.

Blarneystoner
reply to post by Phage

 

Did you miss this part of the description?

The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose

Other type powder compositions can also be used with the apparatus described herein. For example, various powder particles which reflect electromagnetic radiation can be dispensed as a chaff or the like from the contrail generator.

Obviously many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described.

So essentially, you could spray anything you want out of an aircraft for any reason?

Thanks. I sure am glad you patent showed us that. Otherwise, I would have never thought such a thing possible.

Do you think about this stuff before you post it? seriously, apply just a bit of common sense please.