Chem trails

mcmoustache

uprising wrote: »

You can bury your head in the sand, live in lala land, but the truth will be waiting when you get over your bout of denial. Look at the evidence.



Do you 100% think there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from aeroplanes, because there's evidence which says it has happened, I say it still is happening.

That post is very spannery. There was no need infer that I'm being wilfully ignorant and living in some sort of comforting dreamland. Accusing me of being in denial? That's insulting and you shouldn't attack the poster. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that your post was moronic. No man of reason would ever go on like that.

Regarding your second paragraph, I find that straw-man to be retarded. I never suggested that "there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from aeroplanes".The first sentence of my post is enough for your question.

That post of yours contributed nothing useful to this discussion and neither has my response.

uprising

mcmoustache wrote: »

That post is very spannery. There was no need infer that I'm being wilfully ignorant and living in some sort of comforting dreamland. Accusing me of being in denial? That's insulting and you shouldn't attack the poster. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that your post was moronic. No man of reason would ever go on like that.

Regarding your second paragraph, I find that straw-man to be retarded. I never suggested that "there is absolutely nothing, could be nothing, was never nothing sprayed from aeroplanes".The first sentence of my post is enough for your question.

That post of yours contributed nothing useful to this discussion and neither has my response.

So you agree there are chemtrails?

Tetsudo

On youtube there are 9,380 videos related to contrails. If you type chemtrail, you get 42,800. Most of those 42 thousand are home videos by random people that show somthing in the sky that they figured was unusual and decided to film.

A few fakes here and there mean nothing really. Are we all to believe that all of a sudden, after nearly a century of flight, that people, for no apparent reason, all over the world, began to notice that fumes come out the back of planes?

xD

If i drove to the shop, leaving a massive white cloud of barium in my wake, which then expanded to cover the whole city, i would be arrested. I could claim that it was only exhaust fumes, but im afraid it would just not be believed.

IrelandSpirit

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's clear that the video with the chemtrails is the fake version. It even has a big plane flying in the background in one image . Also you can see the seams in the images where the original sky was cut out and the faked 'chemtrail' sky was pasted in. The agenda of course is to show that there are 'chemtrails' in children's cartoons and whoever put the video together faked the Hedi images as 'proof'.

I read Tetsudo's post and have already responded to it.

Ok no big deal, so it was some fukc-nut on youtube trying to show evidence of something for which there is plenty of evidence anyway.

Or perhaps that image was released as cointelpro, and innocently picked up and then posted, to try and ridicule people. No big deal either way.

mcmoustache

uprising wrote: »

So you agree there are chem-trails?

I agree that chemicals get sprayed from planes, yes. It's a no-brainer.

The main point from my post was that using planes at high altitude was a dumb way to deliver chemicals to organisms on the ground.

namloc1980

Tetsudo wrote: »

On youtube there are 9,380 videos related to contrails. If you type chemtrail, you get 42,800. Most of those 42 thousand are home videos by random people that show somthing in the sky that they figured was unusual and decided to film.

A few fakes here and there mean nothing really. Are we all to believe that all of a sudden, after nearly a century of flight, that people, for no apparent reason, all over the world, began to notice that fumes come out the back of planes?

xD

If i drove to the shop, leaving a massive white cloud of barium in my wake, which then expanded to cover the whole city, i would be arrested. I could claim that it was only exhaust fumes, but im afraid it would just not be believed.

Why would 'they' make them white and highly visible for everyone to see? If 'they' were spraying chemicals on us from high altitude, why not make them invisible?

uprising

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why would 'they' make them white and highly visible for everyone to see? If 'they' were spraying chemicals on us from high altitude, why not make them invisible?

They could sky write "chemicals" and some people still wouldn't believe it, they can put their sybolism evrywhere and people still won't believe it, they hide things in plain sight so people will say "if they were doing that they'd hide it, so it can't be true"

IrelandSpirit

mcmoustache wrote: »

I agree that chemicals get sprayed from planes, yes. It's a no-brainer.

The main point from my post was that using planes at high altitude was a dumb way to deliver chemicals to organisms on the ground.

That's actually a good point. When crop-dusters for example, need to deliver their load over a field, it's generally a localised area, a specific target. They fly low, but are high-profile - most people would run and duck for cover if they saw one about to fly over. Perhaps with the case of chemtrails, the target is, as has been suggested, large populated areas and it is therefore delivered at higher altitudes, and with a greater distribution rate - and it's low profile and won't attract (too much) attention, especially as contrails tend to form at higher altitudes.
Perhaps?
Aside from the 'convenience' of using the vast fleet of commercial airliners too.

IrelandSpirit

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why would 'they' make them white and highly visible for everyone to see? If 'they' were spraying chemicals on us from high altitude, why not make them invisible?

Well this is the thing, the two are easy to confuse for most of us, most people don't know what a contrail is - I mean they see a white trail behind a plane and don't stop to ask the questions we've been going into here. Not to say they might not be curious too, but perhaps they've simply not the time or have bought into the propaganda - for a lot of us it's unthinkable that elements of our government's would ever do such a thing to us anyway.

IrelandSpirit

uprising wrote: »

They could sky write "chemicals" and some people still wouldn't believe it, they can put their sybolism evrywhere and people still won't believe it, they hide things in plain sight so people will say "if they were doing that they'd hide it, so it can't be true"

best place to hide something is in plane (sic) sight

mcmoustache

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's actually a good point. When crop-dusters for example, need to deliver their load over a field, it's generally a localised area, a specific target. They fly low, but are high-profile - most people would run and duck for cover if they saw one about to fly over. Perhaps with the case of chemtrails, the target is, as has been suggested, large populated areas and it is therefore delivered at higher altitudes, and with a greater distribution rate - and it's low profile and won't attract (too much) attention, especially as contrails tend to form at higher altitudes.
Perhaps?
Aside from the 'convenience' of using the vast fleet of commercial airliners too.

The height is the problem. Those planes would need to be high up to cover a large country and at those altitudes, any dispersed chemical will have been very diluted by the time it reaches us, if it does at all. At low altitudes they would be very effective but far more noticeable. They would be above us all the time and it would be very noisy. Very expensive as well. I just don't see why planes would be considered.

I don't think it's far-fetched to think that governments would use chemicals on their citizens. We have fluoride in our water for example. They could just add what they want to the reservoirs. They would be caught easily enough, though, as it's pretty trivial to have water tested.

Using smokestacks or incinerators might be a better way to scatter it. It's a bit less conspicuous but you would still need quite a lot of them. Although, if you were only interested in covering a city like Dublin, you wouldn't need many at all.

But I definitely don't think planes would be the method of a ruling elite.

IrelandSpirit

mcmoustache wrote: »

The height is the problem. Those planes would need to be high up to cover a large country and at those altitudes, any dispersed chemical will have been very diluted by the time it reaches us, if it does at all. At low altitudes they would be very effective but far more noticeable. They would be above us all the time and it would be very noisy. Very expensive as well. I just don't see why planes would be considered.

I don't think it's far-fetched to think that governments would use chemicals on their citizens. We have fluoride in our water for example. They could just add what they want to the reservoirs. They would be caught easily enough, though, as it's pretty trivial to have water tested.

Using smokestacks or incinerators might be a better way to scatter it. It's a bit less conspicuous but you would still need quite a lot of them. Although, if you were only interested in covering a city like Dublin, you wouldn't need many at all.

But I definitely don't think planes would be the method of a ruling elite.

This is it, good points there, I have trouble with a lot of it too - and if the intent was to poison us with chemicals outright there are far more expedient methods, as you suggest. And they're already doing that anyway.... I don't know, I really don't... it does obviously boil down to the intent, to what the first target might be - perhaps it's not about causing outright harm - no, let me rephrase that, perhaps the chemicals being sprayed are not supposed to kill, (though obviously we know many 'incurable' diseases are on the rise) because too people dropping dead in the street all at once would draw too much attention. But if this is part of a population reduction agenda, perhaps chemtrails only add to all the other junk we're poisoned with daily, such as fluoride as you say: weaken large populations slowly over time, destroy our immune systems - barium, from what I've read does appear to do this. Aluminium is a well-established cause of brain degenerative diseases...

.... there also appears to be organic elements to this too - Chemtrails are a cocktail of vile stuff that people have analysed: Bariumblues website's has a lot of info on what's been found in rainfall after heavy spraying.
But we're only talking about population reduction here, and that might not be the first target at all, an operation of this scale and co-ordination would probably be multi-pronged - I imagine the opportunities it would throw up would be too 'good' to miss, to combine other agendas: weather manipulation, testing HAARP Tesla-style weaponry, testing bio-weapons, airborne vaccines and so on. It's a great opportunity.

Building a shield to protect us from the sun? Under the guise of combating 'global warming' and saving the world, anybody involved on the lower echelons would go along with a lot of things...

Whatever's going on, it's been done without our consent so like any black ops, it'll be heavily compartmentalised and the left hand won't know what the right hand's doing anyway.

Bottom line, at this stage still, I reckon nobody knows the full extent of it... all I know is that 'something' is VERY wrong with our skies, for the last 10 years or so, and there's some fukcin nasty ****t coming down in our rain...

Zulu

uprising wrote: »

"The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
...http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Thats England, not Ireland.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

But contrails are short and don't do much, they last for mere minutes, at most, whereas chemtrails go on, and on, and on in long streaks across the sky... and gradually widen, over hours, expanding to cover the entire sky.

I've seen both these types of trails (as have others) being formed on the same day and in stable weather conditions.

That is just too big a difference in effect to be initiated by the same cause.

This is, I believe, what lies at the heart of the issue.

If it is correct that contrails cannot last more then a couple of minutes, then it follows that something which does last is not a contrail.

If it is correct that stable weather conditions mean that every plane in the sky (or in a section of sky) should produce similar effects, then seeing different effects should indicate that something unusual is happening.

From my side, though, I've never seen a convincing argument why contrails can't persist, nor that stable weather conditions should mean that planes seperated by unknown distances must generate the same effects. If there's one out there that someone finds convincing, I'd be interested in hearing it, or having a link to it.

Now, of course, given my previous stance, there is an onus to establish reasoning why contrails can persist...and I'll readily accept that "we see them persisting, ergo they can" is weak.

Here's my understanding of it...

The closer conditions are to a cloud-formation state, the longer the contrail can persist. In effect, the contrail becomes a cloud...the contrail itself creates a localised effect sufficient to change the condition from "not quite at cloud formation" to "is a cloud". If overall conditions move slightly in the right direction, then clouds form naturally...which can give the appearance of a contrail spreading out to cover the sky.

When we look at normal clouds, even in stable weather, its not always the case that the entire sky is covered by cloud...and rarely if ever the case that the clouds exist at every altitude. This then would indicate that its possible to have differing conditions (with respect to cloud formation) in the sky at the same time, seperated by height or distance. If, then, we apply that reasoning to the notion of contrail-persistence being very similar to cloud-formation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that we can have planes, seperated by altitude, distance and/or time, generating different effects.

Its worth remembering that when we see high-flying aircraft, they can be seperated by hundreds or thousands of vertical meters, with very little to tell us so from ground-based, naked-eye observation. Similarly, the distance they appear to be from each other (ignoring altitude) can also be deceptive. They may appear close by each other, but given how far away they are, they could be seperated by (again) thousands of meters.

thecommander

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

best place to hide something is in plane (sic) sight

Best way to hide something is make it invisible.

Torakx

i believe there is alot more to it than mentioned on this page.
i vaguely remember watching a good while ago videos on these chemtrails and contrails and it was mentioned also the places where these trails come from on the planes.
i think it was shown that alot of these planes had trails coming out of the tips of there wings in some instances but i really dont remember too wlel exactly where it was.
just thought id mention that for others if interested in researching this for themselves.

oh and also the barium that has been coming down on top of people and growing out of there skin. if barium has been proven to come from these contrails i would say thats a pretty good link.or that mysterious gelatanus substance that fell in north west ireland and also i hear before that canada seems a little suspicious since afaik it is an unrecognized substance unexpplainable by convention means.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

This is, I believe, what lies at the heart of the issue.

If it is correct that contrails cannot last more then a couple of minutes, then it follows that something which does last is not a contrail.

If it is correct that stable weather conditions mean that every plane in the sky (or in a section of sky) should produce similar effects, then seeing different effects should indicate that something unusual is happening.

From my side, though, I've never seen a convincing argument why contrails can't persist, nor that stable weather conditions should mean that planes seperated by unknown distances must generate the same effects. If there's one out there that someone finds convincing, I'd be interested in hearing it, or having a link to it.

Now, of course, given my previous stance, there is an onus to establish reasoning why contrails can persist...and I'll readily accept that "we see them persisting, ergo they can" is weak.

Here's my understanding of it...

The closer conditions are to a cloud-formation state, the longer the contrail can persist. In effect, the contrail becomes a cloud...the contrail itself creates a localised effect sufficient to change the condition from "not quite at cloud formation" to "is a cloud". If overall conditions move slightly in the right direction, then clouds form naturally...which can give the appearance of a contrail spreading out to cover the sky.

When we look at normal clouds, even in stable weather, its not always the case that the entire sky is covered by cloud...and rarely if ever the case that the clouds exist at every altitude. This then would indicate that its possible to have differing conditions (with respect to cloud formation) in the sky at the same time, seperated by height or distance. If, then, we apply that reasoning to the notion of contrail-persistence being very similar to cloud-formation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that we can have planes, seperated by altitude, distance and/or time, generating different effects.

Its worth remembering that when we see high-flying aircraft, they can be seperated by hundreds or thousands of vertical meters, with very little to tell us so from ground-based, naked-eye observation. Similarly, the distance they appear to be from each other (ignoring altitude) can also be deceptive. They may appear close by each other, but given how far away they are, they could be seperated by (again) thousands of meters.

Thanks Bonkey, balanced and well-reasoned there. I wish I can reciprocate in kind but I'm not an expert on cloud formation - my understanding of most scientific fields is at best rudimentary, and I wish I could provide some links for you - though either way, I wouldn't be sure as to which arguments are valid for or against the persistence of normal contrails.

I do, however, remember that deep, clear azure sky we used get and not that long ago. I'm an artist, I don't just remember that's what the sky looked like, but I have vivid paintings of that sky. I lived in the country for many years, on the west coast (without tv) and you can't help but notice these things anyway, if you have a sensitivity and appreciation of nature - even the subtle qualities of the light changing in the evening becomes something you look forward to, if you follow me.

Ok, I know none of this sounds scientific on the surface, unless we acknowledge that observation is at the heart of science. And it has been pointed out to me that the increase of air traffic might be the cause - that it's simply a case of more planes producing more contrails. The problem with that argument is the sheer numbers, the scale of these persistent contrails, and in such a short space of time.

I do believe that under certain weather conditions contrails would persist and form 'clouds', like you say, but I'm mainly drawing from my experience of what the sky used to look like prior the late 90s, and to be honest I don't actually recall that was the case - at least not with the regularity we're observing today.

Sure we'd see contrails, but they vanished in minutes and didn't hang around all day - persistent contrails must have been rare, in other words, and wasn't a concern (aesthetically), so I didn't pay attention to the phenomena.

Since then though, you can't help but notice that the sky is destroyed on most days, in comparison to what it used to look like. I can see it is, I only need to watch what happens on any given (rare) sunny morning to know, from direct experience that those 'contrails' are not normal; that basically, the sky looks 'wrong'; that the shades and colour of it is all... just wrong.

In any case, accept what i'm saying or don't - I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't know why this is happening, I only know that it is happening.

And it fukcing makes my blood boil.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I do, however, remember that deep, clear azure sky we used get and not that long ago. I'm an artist, I don't just remember that's what the sky looked like, but I have vivid paintings of that sky. I lived in the country for many years, on the west coast (without tv) and you can't help but notice these things anyway, if you have a sensitivity and appreciation of nature - even the subtle qualities of the light changing in the evening becomes something you look forward to, if you follow me.

I follow you.

Ironically, the changes you've seen over the past few decades are most likely from air quality improving then anything else!

Its tangentially related to the whole idea of chem-trails and all. Mostly, we're told that these things have started appearing since sometime in the 80s. Even if we take that to be true, that would roughly coincide with when concerted efforts were made to stop dumping masses of pollution into our atmosphere.

Ok, I know none of this sounds scientific on the surface, unless we acknowledge that observation is at the heart of science.

Observation is the heart of science. Its worth remembering though that in scientifi9c terms, observation is not someone remembering seeing something, through the (potentially rose-tinted) glasses of memory, but rather the direct recording of observation.

And it has been pointed out to me that the increase of air traffic might be the cause - that it's simply a case of more planes producing more contrails. The problem with that argument is the sheer numbers, the scale of these persistent contrails, and in such a short space of time.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that it is simply a case of more planes. Thats one contributing factor. The changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, and any number of other factors all contribute.

I do believe that under certain weather conditions contrails would persist and form 'clouds', like you say, but I'm mainly drawing from my experience of what the sky used to look like prior the late 90s, and to be honest I don't actually recall that was the case - at least not with the regularity we're observing today.

Sure we'd see contrails, but they vanished in minutes and didn't hang around all day - persistent contrails must have been rare, in other words, and wasn't a concern (aesthetically), so I didn't pay attention to the phenomena.

Since then though, you can't help but notice that the sky is destroyed on most days, in comparison to what it used to look like. I can see it is, I only need to watch what happens on any given (rare) sunny morning to know, from direct experience that those 'contrails' are not normal; that basically, the sky looks 'wrong'; that the shades and colour of it is all... just wrong.

It seems you're contradicting yourself here. One one hand, you say that you on most days the sky is destroyed from these things....but that its only on rare sunny mornings that you have direct experience of this "wrongness" (as you see it).

In any case, accept what i'm saying or don't - I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't know why this is happening, I only know that it is happening.

And it fukcing makes my blood boil.

THis is what I don't understand. I accept that you're seeing what you see. I accept you telling me that you're not scientifically literate enough to understand what processes may or may not be at play.

You accept that things have changed, and effectively admit that you don't know why they have changed or what has changed them.

Why does not knowing make your blood boil? More importantly, if not knowing makes your blood boil, wouldn't the obvious thing be to invest time in finding out what is happening?

squod

Torakx wrote: »

.............. mysterious gelatanus substance that fell in north west ireland and also i hear before that canada seems a little suspicious since afaik it is an unrecognized substance unexpplainable by convention means.

Water-soluble polymer, Dyn-O-Mat probably. Available for more maybe ten years now.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I follow you.

Ironically, the changes you've seen over the past few decades are most likely from air quality improving then anything else!

Its tangentially related to the whole idea of chem-trails and all. Mostly, we're told that these things have started appearing since sometime in the 80s. Even if we take that to be true, that would roughly coincide with when concerted efforts were made to stop dumping masses of pollution into our atmosphere.

My understanding, from researching the subject and from observation, chemtrails became acute during the late 90s. But that aside, I fail to see how you can claim that this increase of chemtrails is most likely from air quality improving then anything else. Chemtrails, at the very best, is pollution. What you say is a complete contradiction.

bonkey wrote: »

Observation is the heart of science. Its worth remembering though that in scientifi9c terms, observation is not someone remembering seeing something, through the (potentially rose-tinted) glasses of memory, but rather the direct recording of observation.

Thanks for acknowledging that observation is at the heart of science. However, I am not looking through rose-tinted glasses at some mythological past when it was safe to drink tap water and skies were sky-blue - this has been observed to have happened in living memory. It has been recorded by many researchers and in accepted mediums used in the scientific process, such as photography and film, and for a number of years now.

bonkey wrote: »

I don't think anyone has ever argued that it is simply a case of more planes. Thats one contributing factor. The changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, and any number of other factors all contribute.

Sweet Jeezus! You're talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, as if these things are somehow natural, like a natural extension of changing weather patterns or something. Please, where talking about pollution, and quite probably the intentional poisoning of large sections of our planet - the only planet we've got. We are all affected by this, whether it's on a purely aesthetic perspective that I was trying to engage, or by the subsequent dangers to our health and well-being from whatever the fukc is in our air, and coming down in rainfall into our water, our foods.

bonkey wrote: »

It seems you're contradicting yourself here. One one hand, you say that you on most days the sky is destroyed from these things....but that its only on rare sunny mornings that you have direct experience of this "wrongness" (as you see it).

Where is the contradiction? I think you might have misread this there. I am saying that a typically sunny day will begin with clear skies, and by the end of that day it will be covered in muck - i.e chemtrails.

bonkey wrote: »

THis is what I don't understand. I accept that you're seeing what you see. I accept you telling me that you're not scientifically literate enough to understand what processes may or may not be at play.

You accept that things have changed, and effectively admit that you don't know why they have changed or what has changed them.

Why does not knowing make your blood boil? More importantly, if not knowing makes your blood boil, wouldn't the obvious thing be to invest time in finding out what is happening?

Either you're clutching at straws here, or purposefully misreading my post, at this stage I don't know which - seriously, I credit you with more integrity than that. I'm not saying it makes my blood boil because I don't know what these chemtrails are, I'm saying that it makes my blood boil that they are there at all. Nothing's been done about it! It's like waking up in some Kafka-esque nightmare surrounded by lobotomised walking dead - try broach the subject with most people and they look at you as if you've grown two heads, and I am obviously at least trying to inform myself or I wouldn't be here.

Look, I might not understand the science behind chemtrails, I am not a chemist, but I do know that at least two of the components, barium and aluminium, are extremely hazardous toxic materials - and we need clean air to breathe, and clean water to drink, and good food to eat. Minimum.

bonkey

[quote=IrelandSpirit;But that aside, I fail to see how you can claim that this increase of chemtrails is most likely from air quality improving then anything else. Chemtrails, at the very best, is pollution. What you say is a complete contradiction.[/quote]

I didn't say that at all. I said that the change in colour of sky that you're seeing is most likely due to a decrease in air pollution, not an increase....the deep azure you saw which you don't see any more was an artefact of dirtier skies, not cleaner ones.

Thanks for acknowledging that observation is at the heart of science. However, I am not looking through rose-tinted glasses at some mythological past when it was safe to drink tap water and skies were sky-blue - this has been observed to have happened in living memory. It has been recorded by many researchers and in accepted mediums used in the scientific process, such as photography and film, and for a number of years now.

In your previous post, the only claim you made about azure skies was that you remembered them. I was pointing out that this isn't what science considers to be observation. If you're saying that researchers have recorded and analysed this change...then I'll readily accept that this is scientific in nature, and would be most interested in seeing or reading about the research.

Sweet Jeezus! You're talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines, the changing nature of flight-patterns, as if these things are somehow natural, like a natural extension of changing weather patterns or something. Please, where talking about pollution, and quite probably the intentional poisoning of large sections of our planet - the only planet we've got.

I'm talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines etc. to explain why these so-called chemtrails are not necessarily anything other than plain-old contrails.


This isn't the Green Issues forum. If you want to get angry about pollution, then perhaps thats where you should go. If you want to discuss whether or not this particular form of pollution is something other then a normal contrail, then this is the place.

Where is the contradiction? I think you might have misread this there. I am saying that a typically sunny day will begin with clear skies, and by the end of that day it will be covered in muck - i.e chemtrails.

How often would you see such sunny days?

Either you're clutching at straws here, or purposefully misreading my post, at this stage I don't know which - seriously, I credit you with more integrity than that. I'm not saying it makes my blood boil because I don't know what these chemtrails are,

By saying they are chemtrails, you are explicitly taking a stance that tehse are not contrails.

You then go on to say that you don't know what they are, and have admitted to not understanding the science of contrail formation, meaning you don't know whether or not they are contrails.

You're about to go on and make a claim about the chemical content, despite having claimed that you don't know whether or not these could be normal contrails because you don't understand the science. If they were normal contrails, then where would this barium and aluminium bee coming from?

Look, I might not understand the science behind chemtrails, I am not a chemist, but I do know that at least two of the components, barium and aluminium, are extremely hazardous toxic materials

Leaving aside the assertion that aluminium - one of the most common elements on teh planet, and one that we use widely in every aspect of our daily lives - is hazardously toxic...

...Exactly what leads you to believe that these are present in wat you are calling chemtrails?

mcmoustache

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

This is it, good points there, I have trouble with a lot of it too - and if the intent was to poison us with chemicals outright there are far more expedient methods, as you suggest. And they're already doing that anyway.... I don't know, I really don't... it does obviously boil down to the intent, to what the first target might be - perhaps it's not about causing outright harm - no, let me rephrase that, perhaps the chemicals being sprayed are not supposed to kill, (though obviously we know many 'incurable' diseases are on the rise) because too people dropping dead in the street all at once would draw too much attention. But if this is part of a population reduction agenda, perhaps chemtrails only add to all the other junk we're poisoned with daily, such as fluoride as you say: weaken large populations slowly over time, destroy our immune systems - barium, from what I've read does appear to do this. Aluminium is a well-established cause of brain degenerative diseases...

.... there also appears to be organic elements to this too - Chemtrails are a cocktail of vile stuff that people have analysed: Bariumblues website's has a lot of info on what's been found in rainfall after heavy spraying.
But we're only talking about population reduction here, and that might not be the first target at all, an operation of this scale and co-ordination would probably be multi-pronged - I imagine the opportunities it would throw up would be too 'good' to miss, to combine other agendas: weather manipulation, testing HAARP Tesla-style weaponry, testing bio-weapons, airborne vaccines and so on. It's a great opportunity.

Building a shield to protect us from the sun? Under the guise of combating 'global warming' and saving the world, anybody involved on the lower echelons would go along with a lot of things...

Whatever's going on, it's been done without our consent so like any black ops, it'll be heavily compartmentalised and the left hand won't know what the right hand's doing anyway.

Bottom line, at this stage still, I reckon nobody knows the full extent of it... all I know is that 'something' is VERY wrong with our skies, for the last 10 years or so, and there's some fukcin nasty ****t coming down in our rain...

You touched on biological agents there and that got me thinking. Chem-trails might be a practical way to deliver nasty micro-organisms or nano-bots of some sort. Some nano-technology or bio-warfare materials might need to be deployed at high altitude to be effective. I don't have enough information to discount that. I still stand by the opinion that they would be a poor way do distribute chemicals

Torakx

the reasons could be many.
i think one of the main issues people have with the skies being sprayed with "contrails" is the barium found after these "contrails" have settled to spread across the sky.

now i dont mind calling them contrails if it makes people feel more relaxed but can we all agree there is something wrong when there is barium coming out the ar$e of a plane and landing in peoples lungs?

also afaik this gel like substance still has not been explained by any scientist.
if it has id appreciate some info via links so i can see what the story is.
i believe it was tested in canada and there were components in it that were unidentifiable.
if that still stands true then i would consider the reason for putting these things in contrails to be along the lines of genetic manipulation be it of humans,animals,plants or water.
while it does block out alot of the sky it doesnt seem to me to be the main intention or goal.(although there are theories on nibiru behind the sun and thats why but im skeptical of that one for now )
i also think its quite possible it is to do with HAARP technology.

either way there has been evidence of barium falling from the skies.
even if it is not a conspiracy surely the government would want to look into such a threat on behalf of public health....or why else would they promote healthy things like the flu vaccine
the more i think about the bull that our government lays on its people the more i pray real terrorists actually start to come about and show the governments how its done via taking down the system.sounds crazy but i would rather see half the world die to chaos then 3/4 to ignorance.jhope that doesnt offend it is just my expression of how i feel about these things sometimes.

ps i have not seen evidence of barium falling from irish skies. only the gel type substance which has not been verified afaik in i think north west ireland somewhere.i do know there are contrails similar to the ones in those documentaries so i am presuming there isnt a third type of contrail i havent heard about and they are indeed the same as the ones in canada.i would test it myself if i knew how.

squod

Torakx wrote: »

also afaik this gel like substance still has not been explained by any scientist.
if it has id appreciate some info via links so i can see what the story is.
i believe it was tested in canada and there were components in it that were unidentifiable.

http://www.aboutus.org/Dynomat.com

Torakx

squod wrote: »

http://www.aboutus.org/Dynomat.com

thank you for the link.
i still am having trouble finding dynomat.com it doesnt seem to be up or exist.
also i cant find any info other than links to other weathermod websites.
if you have a site which explains that same substance found in canada that was tested i would like to look through it.
the gel found in ireland i have only seen pictures i think so for all i know it could be a big coincedence and it is actually from airplane toilets or whatever.

afaik there was no need for pollution control/weather modification in canada where that stuff landed from the sky. same goes for north west ireland.

bonkey

mcmoustache wrote: »

You touched on biological agents there and that got me thinking. Chem-trails might be a practical way to deliver nasty micro-organisms or nano-bots of some sort. Some nano-technology or bio-warfare materials might need to be deployed at high altitude to be effective. I don't have enough information to discount that. I still stand by the opinion that they would be a poor way do distribute chemicals

High-altitude dispersal is a poor way to distribute...well...anything, really.

One of the best-documented cases of atmospheric dispersal would be Chernobyl...and its pretty amazing to read how far things spread. Belarus...Russia...Sweden...Finland....Ireland...the list goes on.

So when people see what they think are chemtrails overhead, one thing you can say with almost-certainty is that whatever-it-is is not going to land on you. It'll land miles away...perhaps hundreds or even thousands of miles away...some hours or days later.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

High-altitude dispersal is a poor way to distribute...well...anything, really.

One of the best-documented cases of atmospheric dispersal would be Chernobyl...and its pretty amazing to read how far things spread. Belarus...Russia...Sweden...Finland....Ireland...the list goes on.

So when people see what they think are chemtrails overhead, one thing you can say with almost-certainty is that whatever-it-is is not going to land on you. It'll land miles away...perhaps hundreds or even thousands of miles away...some hours or days later.

You contradict yourself here, and lend support to the fact that high-altitude dispersal is a perfect way to distribute chemicals over large areas.

'It'll land miles away', ok, but they are doing this all over the Earth. If it is sprayed here, it might land in Britain - if it is sprayed in Britain it might land here, and so on.

But if it is sprayed everywhere, then it will land everywhere.

Yes, including here.

squod

Torakx wrote: »

thank you for the link.
i still am having trouble finding dynomat.com it doesnt seem to be up or exist.
also i cant find any info other than links to other weathermod websites.
if you have a site which explains that same substance found in canada that was tested i would like to look through it.
the gel found in ireland i have only seen pictures i think so for all i know it could be a big coincedence and it is actually from airplane toilets or whatever.

There's a copy of a patent, here.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails/DynoPatent.html

The instant application discloses a method of modifying weather by seeding storm clouds with a polymer. The storm clouds are seeded by dispersing a superabsorbent polymer into the cloud in sufficient quantities to cause a large absorption of water. The reaction of the water with the polymer creates a gel-like substance that precipitates to the surface

Torakx wrote: »

afaik there was no need for pollution control/weather modification in canada where that stuff landed from the sky. same goes for north west ireland.

Which is why I've been googling flight paths and time tables etc. In the hope of finding the Irish versions of these yokes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63852391&postcount=554

No luck.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I didn't say that at all. I said that the change in colour of sky that you're seeing is most likely due to a decrease in air pollution, not an increase....the deep azure you saw which you don't see any more was an artefact of dirtier skies, not cleaner ones.

Are you serious??? lovely clear blue skies are dirty?

Are we in Room 101?

bonkey wrote: »

In your previous post, the only claim you made about azure skies was that you remembered them. I was pointing out that this isn't what science considers to be observation. If you're saying that researchers have recorded and analysed this change...then I'll readily accept that this is scientific in nature, and would be most interested in seeing or reading about the research.

Hold on, but you just agreed that there has been changes in the colour of the sky (because the sky is 'cleaner' and not as blue as it was) and now you're asking me to provide you with research data proving what you already know to be fact?

I went through a similar period of denial too, I think everybody who researches CTs goes through it at some point or another - it's perfectly natural - but the sooner we all cop on, the sooner they'll be enough of us to at least try to do something to stop this.

bonkey wrote: »

I'm talking about the changing nature of air-pollution, the nature of jet engines etc. to explain why these so-called chemtrails are not necessarily anything other than plain-old contrails.

A 737 is a 737, what changes?

What has definitely changed is that a contrail is no longer just a contrail.

bonkey wrote: »

This isn't the Green Issues forum. If you want to get angry about pollution, then perhaps thats where you should go. If you want to discuss whether or not this particular form of pollution is something other then a normal contrail, then this is the place.

I am obviously discussing whether or not this particular form of pollution is something other then a normal contrail. You are the one whose insisting that chemtrails are perfectly normal.

bonkey wrote: »

How often would you see such sunny days?

Errrr... hardly ever anymore, summer's are pretty fukced too, must be all this 'global warming' we've been getting, though for some reason, I find there's a better chance early morning. What's you're point anyway?

bonkey wrote: »

By saying they are chemtrails, you are explicitly taking a stance that tehse are not contrails.

Yes, that's my stance, chemtrails are not contrails. Explicitly.

bonkey wrote: »

You then go on to say that you don't know what they are, and have admitted to not understanding the science of contrail formation, meaning you don't know whether or not they are contrails.

Yes I admit that I do not know the science behind it. I'll venture out here on a limb and say a contrail is composed of water vapour and disperses quite rapidly. And a chemtrail is composed of a cocktail of chemicals and particulates, such as aluminium, around which water droplets will form into something resembling a cloud. Thus keeping them suspended in the sky for long periods.

Either way, I do know the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail by observing the effect. One's short-lived, and the other hangs around in the sky all day blotting out the sun and generally making my life miserable...

bonkey wrote: »

You're about to go on and make a claim about the chemical content, despite having claimed that you don't know whether or not these could be normal contrails because you don't understand the science. If they were normal contrails, then where would this barium and aluminium bee coming from?

How do you know what claim I was about to go on and make? Lol! Can you read my mind?

But I agree, if chemtrails were normal contrails, there would not be barium and aluminium analysed in the rainfall after spraying, and they would rapidly disperse like normal contrails do.

bonkey wrote: »

Leaving aside the assertion that aluminium - one of the most common elements on teh planet, and one that we use widely in every aspect of our daily lives - is hazardously toxic... Exactly what leads you to believe that these are present in wat you are calling chemtrails?

news station confirms barium in chemtrails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

The above link: amongst the first reports on anything resembling mainstream media, and one of the interesting things about it is the clear distinction they make between a contrail and a chemtrail.

thecommander

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

news station confirms barium in chemtrails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

The above link: amongst the first reports on anything resembling mainstream media, and one of the interesting things about it is the clear distinction they make between a contrail and a chemtrail.

Thought we shouldnt trust mainstream media? Maybe this is the disinfo everyone keeps talking about and theres no such thing as chemtrails.