CHEMTRAILS

Jeboa Safari

uprising2 wrote: »

Did anybody follow him here, coz I don't recall seeing you here much.

Your word goes.................straight out the fukking door.
.

No, I didn't follow him here, and he should get over himself if he thinks that, he's hardly that important to me. If you look at my post history, you'll see I've pretty much posted here since I joined.

Dunno what your second sentence means, although I assume it means your not listening to me.

Do you not think its a good idea that people should be challenged to provide some sort of evidence for their claims? And not just somewhere where everyone agrees and thanks each other?

Jeboa Safari

So, the majority of people are willing to kill another human being if they are told to do so by a figure of authority. Your argument that people would not willingly or knowingly poison others just doesn't hold up, because they more than likely would if told that it was ok by their boss.

Milgrim experiment says 65%, so that would leave another 35% who would say something.
Also these people would be dealing with themselves and their family getting poisoned, so that figure would likely be higher

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, all temperature records show a definite decline from 1940 to 1980. The recent rise in temps can easily mean that climate engineering just isn't doing enough to combat global warming. It may even be exasperating the problem by inadvertently trapping too much heat inside the atmosphere. The protective film of chemicals that they thought would block out the harmful rays of the sun may actually be doing the exact opposite. Perhaps it's a balance issue, and they simply released too much into the atmosphere.

It was explained earlier in the thread why the global temps fall after WWII, then sharply rise.

demonspawn wrote: »

In 1961, a man named Milgram conducted an experiment to see how people would behave if they were asked to willingly inflict a lethal electrical shock to another person if told to do so by an authority figure. 65% (26 of 40) of those tested actually did inflict the final, lethal shock.

So, the majority of people are willing to kill another human being if they are told to do so by a figure of authority. Your argument that people would not willingly or knowingly poison others just doesn't hold up, because they more than likely would if told that it was ok by their boss.

I have no issue believing that quite a lot of people if put into the right situation could do bad things to other people. Or for example when they brought several people into a room, with all but one being actors and pumped smoke into the room. The majority of people didn't move as no one else did. However putting people into situations like these is vastly different to keeping a secret all over the world that people are being slowly poisoned. There would need to be thousands of people involved and they would have time and space to reflect on these decisions. Anyone could get a water sample and have it tested. So covering this up is not only improbable but basically impossible.

And as Jeboa Safari points out above even in the studies you linked 35% of people wouldn't do it.

demonspawn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrquFx5uV_E

demonspawn

Another of our grantees, this one in Mexico, has added genes to rice, as well as maize, that help plants tolerate high concentrations of aluminum, a soil toxicity problem that constrains cereal production over vast areas of the tropics. At the University of Delhi, Indian scientists have added two genes to rice that, together, appear to help the plant tolerate prolonged submergence, a common problem in parts of Asia.

Taken from a PDF from Monsanto, the creators of Frankenfoods.

http://www.consigliodirittigenetici.org/new/allegati/Conway_2000.pdf

"Seek, and ye shall find."

demonspawn

Sorry for the repost, I hate being the last post on a page.

uprising2

demonspawn wrote: »

Taken from a PDF from Monsanto, the creators of Frankenfoods.

http://www.consigliodirittigenetici.org/new/allegati/Conway_2000.pdf

"Seek, and ye shall find."

Monsanto fukking frankenfood, Bill Gates and co, enslave the poor farmer, make him pay, enslave him forever with terminator seed's, you must be joking that cannot be.

demonspawn

Please note the "contrail" coming from the plane at the beginning of this video. All true contrails I have seen begin to form at or behind the tail of the aircraft. This "contrail" begins to appear at the very back of the jet engines.

You asked for proof, well here it is in this video. Debunk that.

demonspawn

uprising2 wrote: »

Monsanto fukking frankenfood, Bill Gates and co, enslave the poor farmer, make him pay, enslave him forever with terminator seed's, you must be joking that cannot be.

Yes, "terminator" seeds are also mentioned it the PDF. Scary s**t man. Subsistence farmers that relied on their own seeds will now have to purchase seeds from Monsanto and other such companies simply to survive.

uprising2

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, all temperature records show a definite decline from 1940 to 1980. The recent rise in temps can easily mean that climate engineering just isn't doing enough to combat global warming. It may even be exasperating the problem by inadvertently trapping too much heat inside the atmosphere. The protective film of chemicals that they thought would block out the harmful rays of the sun may actually be doing the exact opposite. Perhaps it's a balance issue, and they simply released too much into the atmosphere.



In 1961, a man named Milgram conducted an experiment to see how people would behave if they were asked to willingly inflict a lethal electrical shock to another person if told to do so by an authority figure. 65% (26 of 40) of those tested actually did inflict the final, lethal shock.

" The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

So, the majority of people are willing to kill another human being if they are told to do so by a figure of authority. Your argument that people would not willingly or knowingly poison others just doesn't hold up, because they more than likely would if told that it was ok by their boss.

Shocking stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk

This girl is obviously a sadist.

That's a fukked up experiment with a fukked up conclusion, these idiots thought they were giving lethal shocks and just did it coz the man in the white coat said so, people are idiots, thick kunt's, willing to possibly kill on a yes/no from Authority, from the Latin word auctoritas, means invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.

Absurdum

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea and if you wan't to put some amp's of intelligence into your head turn it to 1 or OFF and sit down think a little.

I'm gonna sit down and think about punctuation failure.

uprising2

Absurdum wrote: »

I'm gonna sit down and think about punctuation failure.

Don't be so absurd.

lalee17

Demonspawn, the problem that everyone has with you is that you just won't listen to anybody's opinion on chemtrails.

I still have an open mind to this, however when I ask questions about it, you retort with half-baked answers that you haven't properly thought about.

So here's another question. Do the mystery men do this to prevent global warming?? Or do they do it to make the global population sick and thus reliant on the health services?


It's a bit far-fetched that these people would risk going to prison for the rest of their lives over this, don't you think?

bonkey

So...one ban (uprising2) and a fistful of red cards later....maybe you all will get the hint and play nice.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Don't play stupid with me, we both know you and your buddy FlutteringBantam were on that thread in AH to troll Nodin after he got fed up with your bulls**t posts in politics. You want me to start quoting? I don't think you understand who you're dealing with. I'm no idiot, if that's what you think.

Only saw this now.
1. FlutterningBantam is not my 'buddy'. I don't know who is other than he posts on the politics board.
2. No I wasn't in that AH thread trolling Nodin, another poster who I don't know.
3. Quote away.
4. Where have I said your an idiot.

I was posting in an AH thread about a funny video, how is that trolling some random poster. Then you went mad out of no where.

And if you look here, I certainly didn't follow you to Conspiracy Theories, I often post here.

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, all temperature records show a definite decline from 1940 to 1980. The recent rise in temps can easily mean that climate engineering just isn't doing enough to combat global warming. It may even be exasperating the problem by inadvertently trapping too much heat inside the atmosphere. The protective film of chemicals that they thought would block out the harmful rays of the sun may actually be doing the exact opposite. Perhaps it's a balance issue, and they simply released too much into the atmosphere.

So, let me get this straight. Any of the following constitute proof of weather tampering to you:
- If the temperature goes up
- If the temperature goes down
- If the temperature stays the same

You will literally interpret anything as evidence that chemtrails are real.

demonspawn wrote: »

You asked for proof, well here it is in this video. Debunk that.

A bunch of unknown people making unsubstantiated claims on youtube. Oh, and a substitute teacher who is worried about ADD. If they have studies showing all that they're claiming, why haven't they been published? Also they're saying in the last five years, you were saying since the 1940s...which is it?

My name is URL

Zillah wrote: »

So, let me get this straight. Any of the following constitute proof of weather tampering to you:
- If the temperature goes up
- If the temperature goes down
- If the temperature stays the same

You will literally interpret anything as evidence that chemtrails are real.

There was a study done during the grounding of planes after 9/11 which showed changes in diurnal temps across the country.

I don't personally think that any (specifically added) chemicals are used to change weather patterns but there doesn't need to be anything added to have the same effect

Jeboa Safari

My name is URL wrote: »

There was a study done during the grounding of planes after 9/11 which showed an changes in diurnal temps across the country.

I don't personally think that any (specifically added) chemicals are used to change weather patterns but there doesn't need to be anything added to have the same effect

Thats to do with contrails, not chemtrails

My name is URL

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Thats to do with contrails, not chemtrails

Yes, I said as much in my post. What does it matter though? I was quoting a post which mentioned weather variations through 'tampering'.. much of a muchness really

demonspawn

Zillah wrote: »

A bunch of unknown people making unsubstantiated claims on youtube. Oh, and a substitute teacher who is worried about ADD. If they have studies showing all that they're claiming, why haven't they been published? Also they're saying in the last five years, you were saying since the 1940s...which is it?

Are you kidding me? You didn't see the official water reports that were held up to the camera? That's proof enough. If they were faked then those people would be looking at all sorts of legal consequences. Monsanto clearly admitting high concentrations of aluminum in the tropics in the PDF I provided is proof enough. Scientists sitting around discussing using aluminum nano particles in jet fuel is proof enough. Hughs Aircraft holding a 1990 patent for climate engineering technology using aluminum aerosol is proof enough.

It's become painfully obvious that no matter what proof is shown you will not believe any of it. Well, that's your problem not mine. I've shown you irrefutable evidence to support my claim that chemtrails are real and yet you still deny all of it. That is willful ignorance and there's nothing I can do to help you with that. Your argument that these are just some unknown people is ridiculous. They are people and they investigated what's been happening around them. That video is the result. Believe it or not, I don't care anymore.

I'm not going to discuss what I said in previous posts because some of what I said is probably wrong. I'm not a scientist and don't have access to classified or unpublished materials. The internet only provides so much information before you hit a brick wall.

If you want to discuss the two videos and the Monsanto PDF I posted on this page then by all means. If you want to run around in circles asking pointless questions like "why hasn't it been published" (go ask a publisher, not me) then you're wasting your time.

demonspawn

lalee17 wrote: »

So here's another question. Do the mystery men do this to prevent global warming?? Or do they do it to make the global population sick and thus reliant on the health services?

I've answered this question twice now, so pay attention if you want to continue being a part of this discussion. Perhaps you'd do well to go all the way back to page one and re-read this thread, maybe then you wouldn't ask the same question over and over.

It's a bit far-fetched that these people would risk going to prison for the rest of their lives over this, don't you think?

Who's going to prison? Governments own the prisons (they're privatized in the US, but the government supplies the convicts), they own the courts, they own the law enforcement agencies. Your point is laughable at best.

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Only saw this now.
1. FlutterningBantam is not my 'buddy'. I don't know who is other than he posts on the politics board.
2. No I wasn't in that AH thread trolling Nodin, another poster who I don't know.
3. Quote away.
4. Where have I said your an idiot.

I was posting in an AH thread about a funny video, how is that trolling some random poster. Then you went mad out of no where.

And if you look here, I certainly didn't follow you to Conspiracy Theories, I often post here.

I apologize if I got the wrong end of the stick. I went back to find the thread in question but it's been deleted completely, no surprise there then. I'll put my happy face on and we can start again. There...

RoboClam

demonspawn wrote: »

Monsanto clearly admitting high concentrations of aluminum in the tropics in the PDF I provided is proof enough.

Your link shows that aluminium concentration in soil is greater is certain areas. No one here would argue this point. However, you came to the conclusion that this fact supports the idea of chemtrails. Here's a few papers on aluminium in soils.


Link

Aluminium (Al) is a natural constituent of all soils and its different forms are widely distributed over the soil profile. Aluminium represents 8% of the total soil mineral content. Most soil Al is bound to the soil mineral structure with only a relatively small proportion released to soil solution. Nevertheless, Boudot et al. consider soil solution transport due to high precipitation under acidic conditions together with dissolution of amorphous Al forms and some other potentially toxic elements, to be a chemical time-bomb [1]. This process represents a serious threat mainly in soils under forest cover [2 and 3].
Aluminium concentration in soil solution depends mainly on soil pH, as has been observed and proved by many researchers. However, the influence of soil pH on Al behaviour is strongly modified by the presence of complexing fractions of soil organic matter [4 and 5]. The distribution of organically bound Al forms between solid and liquid soil phases results from several equilibrium processes. Aluminium can form mobile, easily soluble complexes with low molecular weight organic matter [5], but it can also be bound into insoluble organic complexes [6]. Obviously, the content and quality of soil organic matter is determined by soil exploitation and the type of vegetation cover.
The form of soil Al is a key factor in its potential bioavailability and toxicity. While most soil Al is harmless to living organisms, labile Al forms can enter the food chain and consequently can be potentially toxic to all living organisms including human beings. Aluminium toxicity to plants may lead to decreasing crop yields and serious forest damage

Link

Acidic soils (pH ≤ 5.5) represent around 40–50% of potentially arable soils in the world [25] and [50]. Aluminium (Al) toxicity is a major factor limiting agricultural production in these soils [25] because the concentration of Al (Al3+) in the soil solution increases with decreasing pH. In the rhizosphere, which is defined as the soil adjacent to and influenced by the root [27], external and internal mechanisms of Al tolerance in mircroorganisms and plants have been proposed. External mechanisms are the release of chelating compounds (organic acids) while internal mechanisms refer to detoxification within the cells by proteins that bind Al or the presence of Al-tolerant enzymes. It is known that Al-tolerant bacteria are also resistant to acidity, however acid tolerance does not guarantee Al tolerance [24].
In southern Chile, acidic volcanic soils (Andisols and Ultisols) are the predominant soil types supporting the bulk of agricultural and forestry production. These soils are characterized by pH values between 4.5 and 5.5 and high amounts of extractable and exchangeable Al [34]. The low pH is mainly caused by heavy rainfall during the winter months and use of acidifying N fertilizers such as urea [31] and [33]. The acidification results in an increase in Al3+ concentration in the soil solution, which can reduce plant growth due to Al-toxicity.

My point being, the reasons for differing levels of Aluminium in soils can be explained without assuming chemtrails are the cause.

demonspawn

Another of our grantees, this one in Mexico, has added genes to rice, as well as maize, that help plants tolerate high concentrations of aluminum, a soil toxicity problem that constrains cereal production over vast areas of the tropics.

Rice and maize has been grown in Mexico for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. If naturally occurring aluminum is such a big problem, how have they managed to grow these crops for so long without much hassle? Seems to me that wide-spread aluminum toxicity is a fairly recent problem, hence the need for genetically engineered resistance to it.

So what about the other points the video made? No comment on that? Everyone wanted soil/water tests. The video clearly shows water tests with incredibly high levels of aluminum, strontium, and barium.
So much so that government action was suggested on one test.

My point being, the reasons for differing levels of Aluminium in soils can be explained without assuming chemtrails are the cause.

High concentrations of aluminum in the soil can also be explained by tons of aluminum being dumped out of airplanes on a daily basis. So there.

Zillah

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss what I said in previous posts because some of what I said is probably wrong. I'm not a scientist and don't have access to classified or unpublished materials. The internet only provides so much information before you hit a brick wall.

No, you're not a scientist. Neither am I. Neither of us are qualified to interpret soil analysis. All we saw was some guy holding up an isolated test result. There are literally dozens of possible explanations, such as the particular site he took it from having those concentrations (industrial run off etc) or him contaminating the sample with his gathering methods.

The point is, there are thousands of people in the world who are experts in this sort of thing and they don't seem to think anything unusual is going on. A video on youtube is not going to convince me of a decades old international conspiracy, and it's certainly not going to convince me of all the bizarrely specific details you trot out without basis.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Rice and maize has been grown in Mexico for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. If naturally occurring aluminum is such a big problem, how have they managed to grow these crops for so long without much hassle? Seems to me that wide-spread aluminum toxicity is a fairly recent problem, hence the need for genetically engineered resistance to it.

So what about the other points the video made? No comment on that? Everyone wanted soil/water tests. The video clearly shows water tests with incredibly high levels of aluminum, strontium, and barium.
So much so that government action was suggested on one test.


High concentrations of aluminum in the soil can also be explained by tons of aluminum being dumped out of airplanes on a daily basis. So there.

Dunno if you noticed but that video you posted talking about seeding the atmosphere with aluminium clearly states they haven't done it so they are not sure of the long term consequences.

Just because crops grow in aluminium rich soil doesn't mean they grow at their best in that soil. Aluminium is the most common metal on the earth so the question should be are the amounts in the soil unusual for that area. As I've said to you previously there should be tons of tests which show usually high levels of these metals/chemicals but there isn't. So do we assume that thousands of people all over the world are in on it or it's not actually happening. I'll choose what would seem to be obviously the most likely i.e. that it's highly improbable it's actually happening.
I would imagine that people on boards.ie know or are related to people who test water and soil in Ireland and yet no single whisper of anything has got out. Very very unlikely.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I tend not to believe any old random stuff on the internet.

You do tend to believe blatant IDF propoganda on the BBC though...

demonspawn

demonspawn wrote: »

Eh.......look up?

Also, there's a lot of evidence to support this. Most of it is quickly discounted as deranged CT fantasy so I won't bother.

I posted this on page one. Am I psychic? No, I just know better by now. I know how you guys operate. You ask for evidence, that evidence is provided, then you demand more. It will never be enough for some of you, and that makes me a little bit sad inside.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You do tend to believe blatant IDF propoganda on the BBC though...

You've lost me. Leaving aside this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread when have I actually supported the IDF or Israel?
I may be tired of the constant "the jews dunnit" rubbish from Ct'ers but I certainly do not support a lot of Israel's actions, especially recently.

demonspawn wrote: »

I posted this on page one. Am I psychic? No, I just know better by now. I know how you guys operate. You ask for evidence, that evidence is provided, then you demand more. It will never be enough for some of you, and that makes me a little bit sad inside.

You quoted one isolated incident. If this is going on then the evidence would be all over the place but it isn't.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

You've lost me. Leaving aside this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread when have I actually supported the IDF or Israel?
I may be tired of the constant "the jews dunnit" rubbish from Ct'ers but I certainly do not support a lot of Israel's actions, especially recently.



You quoted one isolated incident. If this is going on then the evidence would be all over the place but it isn't.

The point is that you can were all high and mighty about dismissing online content when you yourself have been duped by the BBC. What is the difference?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

You quoted one isolated incident. If this is going on then the evidence would be all over the place but it isn't.

Not necessarily, you see many people are afraid to speak about what they know because of the vast army of people just like you who do nothing but seek to humiliate and discredit those people.

If you saw a UFO tonight, would you go into work tomorrow telling everyone you saw a UFO? I doubt it, nobody likes to be laughed at by their peers.

Oh, and my point for quoting myself was to illustrate that no matter how much evidence is put forward, people like you will just discount it as fantasy or simply demand more evidence.

joebucks

demonspawn wrote: »

Eh.......look up?

It's no joke man. All this **** is new to me but yesterday morning, I awoke to gorgeous blue skies only to see 5 jets zigzagging the sky.
I got some photos I must post.

I wonder where these planes fly out of and what their agenda is? Weather modificiation? Global cooling? Spraying chemicals? HAARP?

I have watched some videos on youtube but it is all speculation really.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The point is that you can were all high and mighty about dismissing online content when you yourself have been duped by the BBC. What is the difference?

I have no idea what you're on about. When exactly have I quoted the BBC last on anything?

demonspawn wrote: »

Not necessarily, you see many people are afraid to speak about what they know because of the vast army of people just like you who do nothing but seek to humiliate and discredit those people.

If you saw a UFO tonight, would you go into work tomorrow telling everyone you saw a UFO? I doubt it, nobody likes to be laughed at by their peers.

Oh, and my point for quoting myself was to illustrate that no matter how much evidence is put forward, people like you will just discount it as fantasy or simply demand more evidence.

I suppose this is where I call Occam's Razor. For chemtrails to be real we need a vast conspiracy to be true. We need this conspiracy to cover the whole world, where everyone stays silent and not one person releases a test result which shows the poisoning. This scenario is very unlikely indeed. Obviously it's quite possible that through industrial or other pollution that some of these results could be found somewhere but using planes would be indiscriminate and the metals/chemicals would be everywhere. And if they're everywhere we're back to everyone being in on it. Seriously you could get a test done now, how would anyone stop you.

It's one thing some redneck saying he was anally probed and quite another for scientists and environmentalists all over the world to say we're being poisoned. And to be clear about this if your theory made any sense I'd back you, it doesn't so I'm not. If I go on to a public message board and say things as fact I can't then backup I won't be remotely surprised if someone laughs at me. Though no one has laughed at you, they've looked at what you posted, analysed the evidence and looked at the probabilities and found it doesn't add up.

namloc1980

joebucks wrote: »

It's no joke man. All this **** is new to me but yesterday morning, I awoke to gorgeous blue skies only to see 5 jets zigzagging the sky.
I got some photos I must post.

I wonder where these planes fly out of and what their agenda is? Weather modificiation? Global cooling? Spraying chemicals? HAARP?

I have watched some videos on youtube but it is all speculation really.

Or maybe, just maybe, they were commercial aircraft producing contrails??

And what has HAARP got to do with it? It seems HAARP is the #1 culprit in conspiracies these days. If something needs to be blamed.....blame HAARP. Hurricane Katrina? HAARP. Haiti earthquake? HAARP. Who shot JFK? HAARP.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

I suppose this is where I call Occam's Razor. For chemtrails to be real we need a vast conspiracy to be true. We need this conspiracy to cover the whole world, where everyone stays silent and not one person releases a test result which shows the poisoning.

Here's the thing about applying Occram's Razor to this stuff.. the conspiracy does not need to 'cover the whole world', it only needs to cover those who are charged with forming, and trusted in their opinions/hypotheses/theories. If someone questions those people; they're likely to be called a crackpot, or accused of having an ulterior motive because it doesn't adhere to a widely held belief.. a belief which mainly exists because of compartmentalisation of specialties. It would take a larger group to disprove something than it would to maintain the widely held belief.

I don't believe that we're being poisoned, or controlled by any chemical btw.

How about the hypothesis that weather is being regulated with the help of contrails? No chemicals, poisoning or any other sadistic idea of control.. is that any more believable?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

If I go on to a public message board and say things as fact I can't then backup I won't be remotely surprised if someone laughs at me. Though no one has laughed at you, they've looked at what you posted, analysed the evidence and looked at the probabilities and found it doesn't add up.

Why do we keep coming back to this? I have never claimed anything as fact in this thread. I've expressed my opinion and backed that up with irrefutable evidence. Not once did I claim anything here as fact, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Ok, so you've analyzed the evidence. Please be so kind as to debunk the water reports shown in the video I posted. And don't try the "it could be false" argument because falsifying official documents is called fraud and it's punishable with a lengthy prison sentence. If that man and the little girl did in fact falsify those documents, please direct me to the news article stating that they have both been charged with fraud.

When you can debunk those water reports I'll happily move on to present more evidence.

joebucks

namloc1980 wrote: »

Or maybe, just maybe, they were commercial aircraft producing contrails??

These were definitely not just commercial planes.

namloc1980 wrote: »

And what has HAARP got to do with it? It seems HAARP is the #1 culprit in conspiracies these days. If something needs to be blamed.....blame HAARP. Hurricane Katrina? HAARP. Haiti earthquake? HAARP. Who shot JFK? HAARP.

haha i gotta laugh at this.

Who let the dogs out?

I don't know what HAARP does. Some people argue that there is a relationship between HAARP and contrails so I mentioned it for das effekt. Some people also claim that the planes are spraying chemicals. My point is that I don't know what to believe..Haarp/chemicals/global cooling/covering up for Nibiru?

There were 5 planes flying in what appeared to be a pattern yesterday morning. Their contrails seemed to form clouds. This seemed strange to me. Got a problem with that?

Yitzhak Rabin

joebucks wrote: »

These were definitely not just commercial planes.

There were 5 planes flying in what appeared to be a pattern yesterday morning. Their contrails seemed to form clouds. This seemed strange to me. Got a problem with that?

You said you got pics. Post them up and I'll do my best to identify what model of aircraft they are.

My name is URL

joebucks wrote: »

There were 5 planes flying in what appeared to be a pattern yesterday morning. Their contrails seemed to form clouds. This seemed strange to me. Got a problem with that?

This is the worst example of contrailing I've seen.. or best; depending on how you see it :pac:

Took these pics in Jan this year -

http://i45.tinypic.com/2r2ve68.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/28md63a.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2iasgua.jpg

It's awful that our skies can be ruined by them, regardless of what effect they have

namloc1980

joebucks wrote: »

These were definitely not just commercial planes.

What type of aircraft were they?

joebucks wrote: »

There were 5 planes flying in what appeared to be a pattern yesterday morning. Their contrails seemed to form clouds. This seemed strange to me. Got a problem with that?

No problem at all. Contrails ARE artificial clouds. They can grow and persist just like natural clouds. This is not a secret.

joebucks

yekahs wrote: »

You said you got pics. Post them up and I'll do my best to identify what model of aircraft they are.

Can't seem to upload them to page. Do I have to upload them to another site and link them or what?

Photos taken with my phone so quality is pretty poor..I can text or email them to you if you so keen to see.

namloc1980

joebucks wrote: »

Can't seem to upload them to page. Do I have to upload them to another site and link them or what?

Photos taken with my phone so quality is pretty poor..I can text or email them to you if you so keen to see.

Yeah upload the somewhere else like flickr and link them.

Yitzhak Rabin

joebucks wrote: »

Can't seem to upload them to page. Do I have to upload them to another site and link them or what?

You can upload them directly to boards as an attachment, as long as the image is below 1MB.

If it is higher than 1MB, then you should use wthax.org, its a free image upload sight.

Once you upload them, you can link directly to the image by putting /b]IMG[b tags around the URL.

Photos taken with my phone so quality is pretty poor..I can text or email them to you if you so keen to see.

Sorry, I don't like to give out my email and/or phone number online.

joebucks

namloc1980 wrote: »

What type of aircraft were they?

I am not sure but they certainly weren't feckin Ryanair. Next time I see them i will come online and tell ye to look out your window and maybe you can help identify them.

No problem at all. Contrails ARE artificial clouds. They can grow and persist just like natural clouds. This is not a secret.

Thanks for clarifying that.

demonspawn

demonspawn wrote: »

Why do we keep coming back to this? I have never claimed anything as fact in this thread. I've expressed my opinion and backed that up with irrefutable evidence. Not once did I claim anything here as fact, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Ok, so you've analyzed the evidence. Please be so kind as to debunk the water reports shown in the video I posted. And don't try the "it could be false" argument because falsifying official documents is called fraud and it's punishable with a lengthy prison sentence. If that man and the little girl did in fact falsify those documents, please direct me to the news article stating that they have both been charged with fraud.

When you can debunk those water reports I'll happily move on to present more evidence.

Come on lads, let's try to stay focused here.

joebucks

a poor sample really..but you lads wanna see some schnaps..so here ye go..

first one taken at around 9am, second around 1030am, 3rd one around 11 am

Yitzhak Rabin

joebucks wrote: »

a poor sample really..but you lads wanna see some schnaps..so here ye go..

first one taken at around 9am, second around 1030am, 3rd one around 11 am

Thanks for taking the time to put them up. I can't comment authoritatively on the contrails themselves, but they look normal enough to me.

How you can say that

These were definitely not just commercial planes.

I have no idea though.

joebucks

yekahs wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to put them up. I can't comment authoritatively on the contrails themselves, but they look normal enough to me.

How you can say that



I have no idea though.

Commercial aircraft generally fly a specific route to destination. These planes were just going back and forth criss-crossing the sky. 5 of them. Maybe they were just doing some training drills for a pilot school. I don't know. Still seems strange to me.

Scarab80

demonspawn wrote: »

Why do we keep coming back to this? I have never claimed anything as fact in this thread. I've expressed my opinion and backed that up with irrefutable evidence. Not once did I claim anything here as fact, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Ok, so you've analyzed the evidence. Please be so kind as to debunk the water reports shown in the video I posted. And don't try the "it could be false" argument because falsifying official documents is called fraud and it's punishable with a lengthy prison sentence. If that man and the little girl did in fact falsify those documents, please direct me to the news article stating that they have both been charged with fraud.

When you can debunk those water reports I'll happily move on to present more evidence.

I don't think the reports are false, but your argument that if the reports were falsified there would surely be an online news article showing people arrested is patently silly.

Regardless the levels of aluminium and barium found in the rainwater are well within natural levels, as has been shown before aluminium is abundant in soils and has leeched into lakes and rivers - in great amounts when acidic rain was more prevelant.

The levels of barium are 8 ug/l, that's 8 parts barium to 1,000,000,000 parts water. The safe levels prescibed by the EPA are 2mg/l or 2,000 ug/l, so that's 250 times under the safe level. Barium occurs naturally.

The levels of aluminium in drinking water is not regulated by the EPA because most of your aluminium consumption comes from food rather than water, (drinking water accounts for about 2% of aluminium consumption). They do issue guidelines on aluminium levels based on WHO guides, the levels are in excess of those guidelines but not higher than can be found naturally or indeed in bottled water in Australia, see previous link.

Scarab80

joebucks wrote: »

Commercial aircraft generally fly a specific route to destination. These planes were just going back and forth criss-crossing the sky. 5 of them. Maybe they were just doing some training drills for a pilot school. I don't know. Still seems strange to me.

There wouldn't be any jet training schools in Ireland, you are obviously under the intersection of 2 flight paths. Strange as it may seem, planes don't fly direct from A to B, in busy airspace they follow flightpaths set by air traffic control.

Next time you see them check out this site, you can see exactly where the planes are going.

http://www.flightradar24.com/