Chemtrails debunked.

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Indeed, chemtrails don't exist. Contrails do. Even - gasp - over one of the busiest airport hubs in the world.

I will upload pics of rural Spain and France for you which are just as beautifully sprayed as Paris when I'm home with fast wify but hey, I don't know why you're trying to argue with me when we're agreeing with each other, except for your claim that French planes use WW2 engines which I'm not sure about but -- chemtrails or contrails we'll call them whatever you prefer, I'm just glad they're there destroying natural skies and sunsets. And reducing sunlight. I hate sunlight. I hope you do too. We could be friends and count spray-stuff -- ya call it contrails, I call it chemtrails ... la la la

We need to stop these maniacs at the UN, though. They want to stop the contrails because the think they're toxic and bad for the environment and the weather:

Former USDA inspector, Rosalind Peterson speaks at the United Nations forum on Global Warming. "It’s impossible to have a rational discussion on climate change without calculating the effects of decades of weather modification programs, cloud-seeding and Chemtrails." http://vimeo.com/87564470

Terry Gilliam Beard

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really?
U.S. military’s secret experiment sprayed radiation on low-income housing



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/04/u-s-militarys-secret-experiment-sprayed-radiation-on-low-income-housing/


But keep the faith etc

"A college professor from St. Louis, Missouri has released research claiming that the U.S. Army conducted secret Cold War tests by spraying toxic radioactive chemicals on cities like St. Louis and Corpus Christi."

I've bolded the key word here. In other news, we have definitive proof of the Loch Ness Monster:

Loch Ness Monster Sighting? Photographer Claims 'Black Object' Glided Beneath Lake's Surface

IrelandSpirit

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really?
U.S. military’s secret experiment sprayed radiation on low-income housing



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/04/u-s-militarys-secret-experiment-sprayed-radiation-on-low-income-housing/


But keep the faith etc

U.S Air Force toxicologist Kristen Meghan explaining the U.S military connection with chemtrails and the destruction of our sky and environment. 21:35mins

Tesco TripleChicken

The planes "spraying" these chemtrails are always unmarked, there's plenty of photographic evidence of this. For people who think that the chemicals would be ineffective when sprayed at such a height - They do it very often (I've seen it) so all that stuff has to go somewhere, no? Eventually it will polute the air. Who knows exactly what they're doing, maybe it's harmless maybe it's toxic. Just to clarify for those who think there's no difference between chem/contrails - Contrails are made of water vapour, the disappear within seconds but can last a few minutes depending on atmospheric conditions.
Chemtrails are the huge white scars in the sky that stretch for miles and spread out throughout the day. This is most evident during summer. It's also done worldwide (at least I've seen it all over Europe and America)

pfurey101

Are you conspiracy people now saying it's only some US military aircraft that are trying to kill everyone on the planet?

It's just as well that 99% of all water vapour contrails are from commercial aircraft.

Chemtrails now be considered debunked.

Now work on the greater pollutant from land vehicle exhaust, coal fires and methane. And we all know where the methane is coming from.

AngryHippie

Tesco TripleChicken wrote: »

The planes "spraying" these chemtrails are always unmarked, there's plenty of photographic evidence of this. For people who think that the chemicals would be ineffective when sprayed at such a height - They do it very often (I've seen it) so all that stuff has to go somewhere, no? Eventually it will polute the air. Who knows exactly what they're doing, maybe it's harmless maybe it's toxic. Just to clarify for those who think there's no difference between chem/contrails - Contrails are made of water vapour, the disappear within seconds but can last a few minutes depending on atmospheric conditions.
Chemtrails are the huge white scars in the sky that stretch for miles and spread out throughout the day. This is most evident during summer. It's also done worldwide (at least I've seen it all over Europe and America)

Terry Gilliam Beard

Well seeing as unsubstantiated claims apparently count as truth, I hereby provide proof of the Loch Ness Monster:

Terry Gilliam Beard

Tesco TripleChicken wrote: »

Just to clarify for those who think there's no difference between chem/contrails - Contrails are made of water vapour, the disappear within seconds but can last a few minutes depending on atmospheric conditions.

Just to clarify, I take it that you have ignored the info contained in this video?

Daithi 1 wrote: »

IrelandSpirit

Tesco TripleChicken wrote: »

Chemtrails are the huge white scars in the sky that stretch for miles and spread out throughout the day. This is most evident during summer. It's also done worldwide (at least I've seen it all over Europe and America)

I've seen them everywhere too, since around '98/99 BUT Terry claims I have faith and that the big lines in the sky are just ordinary contrails sprayed by crappy WW2 engines! :eek: Who do I believe? I wish Jesus was here, he'd know what to let me believe.

Ireland, Wexford -- on Chemtrails blocking out the sun, geoengineering, Agenda 21, Vit D3 deficiency and disease, etc: Published on 9 Mar 2014
Wexford Skywatch hit the streets of Wexford town today for another information blitz. Geoengineering documents to reference :

Owning the weather by 2025 :

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vo...

House of commons regulations on Geoengineering :

http://www.publications.parliament.uk./..

/221/221.pdf

Aurora flight sciences :

http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/Mis...

Welsbach Patent:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4296843/US-...

welsbach-seeding-for-reduction-of-global­-warming

Solar Radiation Management Government Initiative.

http://www.srmgi.org/files/2012/01/DE...

report_web_11112.pdf

For Geoengineering flyers to hand out in your area got to:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/164684539/G...

Street-Leaflet-4-Flyers-on-A4-PDF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJNr6e...

For more information on Geoengineering go to : http://www.uk/-

skywatch.co.uk/

Terry Gilliam Beard

I guess IrelandSpirit is also ignoring that video. It's important to ignore facts if they undermine your faith.

Brown Bomber

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

"A college professor from St. Louis, Missouri has released research claiming that the U.S. Army conducted secret Cold War tests by spraying toxic radioactive chemicals on cities like St. Louis and Corpus Christi."

I've bolded the key word here. In other news, we have definitive proof of the Loch Ness Monster:

Here is the dissertation. http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/2708892501/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=DC8RSoYvNSEYfGLn7fsIa6lfD%2B8%3D

You may find it useful.

Abstract:
This piece analyzes a covert Manhattan Project spin-off organization referred to here as the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, and an obscure aerosol study in St. Louis, Missouri, conducted under contract by the U.S. military from 1953–1954, and 1963–1965. The military-sponsored studies targeted a segregated, high-density urban area, where low-income persons of color predominantly resided. Examination of the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition and the St. Louis aerosol studies, reveal their connections to each other, and to a much larger military project that secretly tested humans, both alive and deceased, in an effort to understand the effects of weaponized radiation. Through this case study, the author explores how a large number of participants inside an organization will willingly participate in organizational acts that are harmful to others, and how large numbers of outsiders, who may or may not be victims of organizational activities, are unable to determine illegal or harmful activity by an organization. The author explains how ethical and observational lapses are engineered by the organization through several specific mechanisms, in an effort to disable critical analysis, and prevent both internal and external dissent of harmful organizational actions. Through studying the process of complex organizational deviance, we can develop public policies that protect the public's right to know, and construct checks and methods to minimize the chance of covert projects that are contrary to societal norms.

I don't consider your raising of the Loch Ness Monster as especially helpful or honest. When Obama's drones were blowing many children to tiny pieces and the administration denied the existence of the drone program did you say "Ha! Flying, pilotless machines! Ha! with missiles???! did they make some crop circles on their way?"
From my perspective it is your FAITH in government and media that is the problem. You have FAITH that it is "impossible" that a your/a government couldn't be using it's military to test weapons against you, and if they did it would have been exposed by the media, why is that...?

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Just to clarify, I take it that you have ignored the info contained in this video?

I've seen it, and others similar but they make no sense. The sky is still beautifully destroyed with spray-stuff regardless of these pseudo-scientific 'explanations.' White lines everywhere, lovely. No natural sunlight. No clear blue sky.

Also, I like your explanation about the WW2 engines spraying the sky in 2014 a lot better. Can I follow you, like a Jesus? I have faith. :rolleyes:

Terry Gilliam Beard

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't consider your raising of the Loch Ness Monster as especially helpful or honest. When Obama's drones were blowing many children to tiny pieces and the administration denied the existence of the drone program did you say "Ha! Flying, pilotless machines! Ha! with missiles???! did they make some crop circles on their way?"

Drone strikes were widely reported, even though it would rather easier to hide than a giant worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of pilots, ground staff, engineers, military officials (?) and political figures in dozens of democratic countries with a free press. In fact, hiding the drone strikes would be a walk in the park by comparison. And yet the info about drones killing innocents got out.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From my perspective it is your FAITH in government and media that is the problem. You have FAITH that it is "impossible" that a your/a government couldn't be using it's military to test weapons against you, and if they did it would have been exposed by the media, why is that...?

I have little faith in governments. I have abundant faith in common sense and science. There is ZERO chance that this vast global conspiracy could be a) carried out and b) hidden.

Two questions for you:

1. How do YOU think the hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life in dozens of countries have kept this quiet?

2. What makes you think that chemtrails exist, as they are indistinguishable from the ground from contrails - contrails documented right back to the type of jet engine that existed in WW2?

Terry Gilliam Beard

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I've seen it, and others similar but they make no sense.

The books document that as far back as 70 years ago the existence of persistent contrails that spread out horizontally were widely known, pictured and written about.

How does it not make sense? Because it makes nonsense of your faith?

Actually, I've read your post again and your post makes no sense. You are saying that the videos 'make no sense' because you can see lots of contrails. That does not make sense, does it? You know that there are more planes in the sky than ever, right?

Brown Bomber

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Drone strikes were widely reported, even though it would rather easier to hide than a giant worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of pilots, ground staff, engineers, military officials (?) and political figures in dozens of democratic countries with a free press. In fact, hiding the drone strikes would be a walk in the park by comparison. And yet the info about drones killing innocents got out.

I have little faith in governments. I have abundant faith in common sense and science. There is ZERO chance that this vast global conspiracy could be a) carried out and b) hidden.

Two questions for you:

1. How do YOU think the hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life in dozens of countries have kept this quiet?

2. What makes you think that chemtrails exist, as they are indistinguishable from the ground from contrails - contrails documented right back to the type of jet engine that existed in WW2?

Whatever gave you the idea that I believe in any hundreds of thousands keeping quiet about anything? I just felt compelled to take you up on what I consider your naive comments regarding the impossibility that a military could be carrying out experiments on it's own citizens when history has shown us that this has been the way for decades.

You may be ignorant of this which is fair enough, or you could be struggling with cognitive dissonance as there is a conflict between what you claim to have "abundant faith" in, "common sense" and science. As it is immoral scientists leading these projects using "science" not for "common sense" or for any betterment of mankind but to weaken and kill people and to advance racist imperialism.

Terry Gilliam Beard

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whatever gave you the idea that I believe in any hundreds of thousands keeping quiet about anything? I just felt compelled to take you up on what I consider your naive comments regarding the impossibility that a military could be carrying out experiments on it's own citizens when history has shown us that this has been the way for decades.

You may be ignorant of this which is fair enough, or you could be struggling with cognitive dissonance as there is a conflict between what you claim to have "abundant faith" in, "common sense" and science. As it is immoral scientists leading these projects using "science" not for "common sense" or for any betterment of mankind but to weaken and kill people and to advance racist imperialism.

That's not a very honest attempt to answer the questions, is it? Please try to address the questions, or just ignore the posts. There's no point in answering the posts without answering the actual questions I put to you.

The questions again:


1. How do YOU think the hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life in dozens of countries have kept this quiet?

2. What makes you think that chemtrails exist, as they are indistinguishable from the ground from contrails - contrails documented right back to the type of jet engine that existed in WW2?

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

The books document that as far back as 70 years ago the existence of persistent contrails that spread out horizontally were widely known, pictured and written about.

How does it not make sense? Because it makes nonsense of your faith?

No. Call it contrails or chemtrails or whatever you like, but I'm old enough to have experienced natural clean skies. We had plenty of air traffic but didn't have the entire sky covered with muck as we do most of the time nowadays.

But I will ask you something, do you like natural sunsets? Do you like clean blue skies -- are you prepared to perhaps never see that again? Assuming you're old enough to have even experienced a sky which isn't crammed full of chemtrails, contrails as you call it. The generation growing up now, haven't, not for any consistent length of time.

Just asking, because whatever you want to call that white stuff up there, that appears to be the future planned for us. Do you like it?

Terry Gilliam Beard

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No. Call it contrails or chemtrails or whatever you like, but I'm old enough to have experienced natural clean skies. We had plenty of air traffic but didn't have the entire sky covered with muck as we do most of the time nowadays.

So your problem is that there are more planes in the sky than when you were a kid??

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

But I will ask you something, do you like natural sunsets? Do you like clean blue skies -- are you prepared to perhaps never see that again? Assuming you're old enough to have even experienced a sky which isn't crammed full of chemtrails, contrails as you call it. The generation growing up now, haven't, not for any consistent length of time.

I like a clear blue sky as much as the next person. I also like the fact that I can fly all over Europe for buttons. I prefer the latter to the former.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Just asking, because whatever you want to call that white stuff up there, that appears to be the future planned for us. Do you like it?

I see the advantages and drawbacks of it.

But even if I absolutely loved or hated a clear blue sky, it would have absolutely nothing to do with a giant global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people that has absolutely ZERO supporting evidence and even the prima facie evidence - the contrails themselves - have been documented as existing as far back as the type of jet engines used during WW2.

Brown Bomber

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

That's not a very honest attempt to answer the questions, is it? Please try to address the questions, or just ignore the posts. There's no point in answering the posts without answering the actual questions I put to you.

The questions again:


1. How do YOU think the hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life in dozens of countries have kept this quiet?

2. What makes you think that chemtrails exist, as they are indistinguishable from the ground from contrails - contrails documented right back to the type of jet engine that existed in WW2?

I apologise if I wasn't clear enough before, I had thought that it was implied. I personally consider the idea of "chemtrails" or what I understand to be chemtrails to be impractical essentially for reasons of logistics. That doesn't mean there isn't other forms of attempted weather modification or other aerosol spraying experiments happening. How long did they keep the Manhattan Project secret for? The US has even fought wars in Laos and Cambodia that they kept secret.

There is an easy way to settle this. Log on to one of those flight tracker sites, predict the contrails here beforehand and then go out and photograph them.

Terry Gilliam Beard

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I apologise if I wasn't clear enough before, I had thought that it was implied. I personally consider the idea of "chemtrails" or what I understand to be chemtrails to be impractical essentially for reasons of logistics. That doesn't mean there isn't other forms of attempted weather modification or other aerosol spraying experiments happening. How long did they keep the Manhattan Project secret for? The US has even fought wars in Laos and Cambodia that they kept secret.

I think the Manhattan Project was secret for less than a decade. But thanks for the clarification.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is an easy way to settle this. Log on to one of those flight tracker sites, predict the contrails here beforehand and then go out and photograph them.

The problem with this is that the behaviour of the contrails is a function of the air pressure, air temperature and air speeds at different altitudes. You'd need to cross reference it with weather information that may not even be available.

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

So your problem is that there are more planes in the sky than when you were a kid??

No, I wasn't a kid and there were plenty of planes, I was in my thirties when we first noticed the 'white lines' as we called them, 1998, living in the country. We watched the skies, a lot. Needed to, doing weather-dependant work as most of us were at the time. And this muck up there in the sky that we have now, happened quite fast, almost from one day to the next, getting worse, month by month and continued to get worse. By 2000/01 the sky was wrecked most days.

(Except for that time around 9/11, when all the flights stopped and the sky actually cleared up. Properly. The stars were amazing, you should've seen them).

I like a clear blue sky as much as the next person. I also like the fact that I can fly all over Europe for buttons. I prefer the latter to the former.

Clearly, you've never actually experienced the beauty of a clean sky. You'd never swap that for the muck we have now, and for a cheap flight? How sad.

Terry Gilliam Beard

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I wasn't a kid and there were plenty of planes, I was in my thirties when we first noticed the 'white lines' as we called them, 1998, living in the country. We watched the skies, a lot. Needed to, doing weather-dependant work as most of us were at the time. And this muck up there in the sky that we have now, happened quite fast, almost from one day to the next, getting worse, month by month and continued to get worse. By 2000/01 the sky was wrecked most days.

(Except for that time around 9/11, when all the flights stopped and the sky actually cleared up. Properly. The stars were amazing, you should've seen them).

And this 'proves' what, in your opinion?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Clearly, you've never actually experienced the beauty of a clean sky. You'd never swap that for the muck we have now, and for a cheap flight? How sad.

Not for a cheap flight - hundreds of cheap flights, all over the world. Have you not travelled the world? How sad.


(I'll spare you the LOL at the idea that I've never seen a clear sky. Ever been to Antarctica?)

pfurey101

Regurgitating my post from 23/12:


"Ive been to Boeing and Airbus on many occaisions over a 30 year period, I have studied aircraft systems, I have dealt with aircraft component and engine manufacturers, engineers, flight crew, mechanics, logistics, supply chain, been involved in initial fleet deliveries to many airlines. I have spent years going through aircraft technical drawings, parts catalogues, overhaul and maintenance manuals, airframe and engine and component modifications and service bulletins and wiring diagrams from the Boeing 707's and BAC 1-11's in the 70's to Airbus 330/340's as late as 2009............


AND COMPLETELY MISSED THE CHEMTRAIL CONTROL SYSTEMS (and so did wikileaks)!!!!!!!"

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

And this 'proves' what, in your opinion?

That only a fool fights in a burning house.


Good night.

Terry Gilliam Beard

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That only a fool fights in a burning house.

But you are the one who believes the house is burning...

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Good night.

And a good night to you, sir.

IrelandSpirit

(I'll spare you the LOL at the idea that I've never seen a clear sky. Ever been to Antarctica?)

And I'll spare you the LOL at the sad fact that you'd now need to travel to fukcing Antarctica to experience what we had as a birthright. Ever been to Ireland? The sky was beautiful, until destroyed with areal pollution.

Terry Gilliam Beard

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And I'll spare you the LOL at the sad fact that you'd now need to travel to fukcing Antarctica to experience what we had as a birthright. Ever been to Ireland? The sky was beautiful, until destroyed with areal pollution.

But missing the (very rare) clear blue sky we used to see back in the day is not evidence for anything, except more planes, is it?

There is a trade-off at work between pollution and transport. Did you say that you live in Spain? Do you travel back to Ireland on foot, or by donkey, or do you use modern forms of transport?

pfurey101

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I wasn't a kid and there were plenty of planes, I was in my thirties when we first noticed the 'white lines' as we called them, 1998, living in the country. We watched the skies, a lot. Needed to, doing weather-dependant work as most of us were at the time. And this muck up there in the sky that we have now, happened quite fast, almost from one day to the next, getting worse, month by month and continued to get worse. By 2000/01 the sky was wrecked most days.

(Except for that time around 9/11, when all the flights stopped and the sky actually cleared up. Properly. The stars were amazing, you should've seen them).



Clearly, you've never actually experienced the beauty of a clean sky. You'd never swap that for the muck we have now, and for a cheap flight? How sad.

Have not looked up the last few cold and crystal clear nights? Incredibly beautiful clear cold nights they were! You really do believe only what you want to believe, don't you? And unfortunately that is a common trait for a conspiracist - so no one should really try and convince you otherwise.

I have had an interest in weather and aviation and have been looking to the stars and blue and murky skies since the early 70's and NOTHING sticks out in my mind as having changed over the last 45 years!!! I'm out every Saturday and Sunday mornings with me boys at their football matches and there have been glorious mornings....when it's not windy and raining!

We have always had our cirrus cloudy days, cumulus cloudy days, hazy hot and cold days, crystal clear AND murky blue days. This is feckin Ireland!!!!!!

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

But missing the (very rare) clear blue sky we used to see back in the day is not evidence for anything, except more planes, is it?

We had plenty of planes back in the day, and plenty of natural skies. We went through that one yesterday.

Did you say that you live in Spain? Do you travel back to Ireland on foot, or by donkey, or do you use modern forms of transport

I've travelled all over, on foot, by boat, train, plane, horse, camels you name it, and of course by donkey too, in west cork -- his name was 'Donk'

There is a trade-off at work between pollution and transport.

Ok, pollution. Yes, I'm glad you acknowledge what it is, at it's most basic level. We're seeing evidence that the sky is polluted and no longer natural as it should be, which is in itself an unacceptable situation to be living with, day in, day out. If it was cars spewing that muck we see in our sky, we'd of done something to clean it up by now, we wouldn't be arguing for it. Not only the disastrous visual impact, and the reduction of sunlight and so on, but what goes up, comes down and we're all ingesting it as well -- does this muck look like it's good for us? I'm sure it's not:

pfurey101

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And I'll spare you the LOL at the sad fact that you'd now need to travel to fukcing Antarctica to experience what we had as a birthright. Ever been to Ireland? The sky was beautiful, until destroyed with areal pollution.

As for your second video BOTH are contrails, the wider one would be an earlier one that has lasted longer due to atmospheric conditions. The narrower one should have ended up like the larger one.

You have a date and location, if you had the time and direction you could enter the date and time into flightradar24.com and that will identify the flights and see that they are not one of your special US military flights that you say dump chemicals.

We have established that commercial do not have "Chemtrail Control and Disperse Units".

BTW - lovely blue sky in that video

IrelandSpirit

pfurey101 wrote: »

Have not looked up the last few cold and crystal clear nights? Incredibly beautiful clear cold nights they were! You really do believe only what you want to believe, don't you? And unfortunately that is a common trait for a conspiracist - so no one should really try and convince you otherwise.

I have had an interest in weather and aviation and have been looking to the stars and blue and murky skies since the early 70's and NOTHING sticks out in my mind as having changed over the last 45 years!!! I'm out every Saturday and Sunday mornings with me boys at their football matches and there have been glorious mornings....when it's not windy and raining!

We have always had our cirrus cloudy days, cumulus cloudy days, hazy hot and cold days, crystal clear AND murky blue days. This is feckin Ireland!!!!!!

You are not being honest. All anyone needs to do is look up, to know you're not being honest. And /or if you think these are just normal clouds, then seriously, you need help.

pfurey101

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You are not being honest. All anyone needs to do is look up, to know you're not being honest. And /or if you think these are just normal clouds, then seriously, you need help.

I AM being honest and based on 32 years working in aircraft maintenance - those "white lines" are CONtrails..... and I am being honest.....there are NO such things a CHEMtrails (apart from crop sprayers that fly at 100 feet)

I have seen aircraft fly over with no trails, partial trails, broken trails, trails that vanish immediately, trails that stay for hours and either drift or don't drift.

Those videos are CONtrails and btw it has been speculated that these contrails reflect sunlight and assist in keeping global temperatures down. Hows that for a conspiracy!

YOU really need to be honest with yourself and listen, watch and read both sides of any argument. But hey......maybe I am part of the conspiracy !

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You are not being honest. All anyone needs to do is look up, to know you're not being honest. And /or if you think these are just normal clouds, then seriously, you need help.

What exactly about them isn't normal, and how do you know that they contain anything other than water vapour?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

What exactly about them isn't normal, and how do you know that they contain anything other than water vapour?

Read back. Even chemtrail denier Terry has established that we're at least dealing with pollution.

pfurey101

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Read back. Even chemtrail denier Terry has established that we're at least dealing with pollution.

No one ever said anything denying pollution.... any engine exhaust = pollution. Even though up to 80% of jet engine thrust comes from compressed air that bypasses the engines i.e. pollution free.

This is of course is the same pollution as in the millions of land vehicles, methane gasses, industrial burning, electricity power plants etc.

And it could be argued that jet exhaust is in fact the "cleanest" of all types of exhaust on the planet and causes less damage.

And there are only water droplets in contrails - along with the standard and known engine exhaust contaminants, which disperse differently.

IrelandSpirit

pfurey101 wrote: »

I AM being honest and based on 32 years working in aircraft maintenance

If that's true, then clearly you are a very confused individual and are denying the facts.

There were people who denied pollution existed back in the last century as well -- smog deniers -- even though then too, the pollution was clearly visible, and it took countless of people to get sick and die, poisoned, before these smog deniers were seen for what the were.

Even your chemtrail denier pal has established that we're at least dealing with pollution. Now, whether cheaper air fares are an acceptable trade-off for this pollution, as he claims, is perhaps what we should be dealing with.

Or which is it, you can't have it both ways, you're starting to sound a bit nuts.

pfurey101

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If that's true, then clearly you are a very confused individual and are denying the facts.

There were people who denied pollution existed back in the last century as well -- smog deniers -- even though then too, the pollution was clearly visible, and it took countless of people to get sick and die, poisoned, before these smog deniers were seen for what the were.

Even your chemtrail denier pal has established that we're at least dealing with pollution. Now, whether cheaper air fares are an acceptable trade-off for this pollution, as he claims, is perhaps what we should be dealing with.

Or which is it, you can't have it both ways, you're starting to sound a bit nuts.

Crossed postings there mister. See what I said above.

Aviation has been at the leading edge of enviromental friendly technology.Just Google images of B707's, DC-8's, Tridents and B52's taking off in the 60's. Them's were smokin in them days...pure 100% pollution by the megaton!



Those days are gone! The pollution isnt but not as severe as it was.

Brown Bomber

pfurey101 wrote: »

You really do believe only what you want to believe, don't you? And unfortunately that is a common trait for a conspiracist - so no one should really try and convince you otherwise.

This is just more of the Loch Ness Monster/Bigfoot bullshine repackaged. Both of you have formed your opinions based on your own personal observations and experiences. What gives you the right to label him while remaining unlabelled yourself.


I would be interested in your answer to the following questions:


Do you believe government(s) (that is western, democratic) etc would be too moral to test weapons in secret on their population?


If not, and I can't imagine you answering Yes to the previous question, even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were experiments, how would you best disguise aerial spraying of the skies?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Read back. Even chemtrail denier Terry has established that we're at least dealing with pollution.

No sorry, nowhere in the last few pages have you explained how to tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails.

Do you believe there are such thing as normal contrails?

Brown Bomber

pfurey101 wrote: »

Crossed postings there mister. See what I said above.

Aviation has been at the leading edge of enviromental friendly technology.Just Google images of B707's, DC-8's, Tridents and B52's taking off in the 60's. Them's were smokin in them days...pure 100% pollution by the megaton!



Those days are gone! The pollution isnt but not as severe as it was.

Likewise McDonalds is at the cutting edge of healthy eating as they now do salads.

IrelandSpirit

Those days are gone! The pollution isnt but not as severe as it was.

Clearly, those days are not gone, they've become worse as evidenced by the fact there so much aerial smog up there, it's even reducing our sunlight. You too confirm this. Is it a good thing for global warming as you claim? That's debatable. But is reducing natural sunlight a good thing for humans, for plants and life in general? No. Just on that level alone, we should all be arguing to clean up our skies.

pfurey101

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is just more of the Loch Ness Monster/Bigfoot bullshine repackaged. Both of you have formed your opinions based on your own personal observations and experiences. What gives you the right to label him while remaining unlabelled yourself.


I would be interested in your answer to the following questions:


Do you believe government(s) (that is western, democratic) etc would be too moral to test weapons in secret on their population?


If not, and I can't imagine you answering Yes to the previous question, even Nagasaki and Hiroshima were experiments, how would you best disguise aerial spraying of the skies?

Its obvious where you are going with this and I have read all the Robert Ludlum and Dan Browne books and of course the powers to be are up to all sorts of divilment but FFS don't give them that much credit as most of them are fools!

How can the 100,000's that have been employed in aviation the last 70 years kept quite about "chemtrails" maybe because they don't exist??????

While Wikileaks was a mass embarrassment for the US and caused no end of grief for the politicians, it was an awful revelation for conspiracists....no chemtrails, no secret Twin Tower destruction by Bush, no secret groups, no simulated moon landing, no Bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster....nothing mentioned nowhere!

I will repeat, of course they are up to no good as power corrupts - but don't give them that much credit as they seem to mess up most of what they touch!

Brown Bomber

pfurey101 wrote: »

Its obvious where you are going with this and I have read all the Robert Ludlum and Dan Browne books and of course the powers to be are up to all sorts of divilment but FFS don't give them that much credit as most of them are fools!

How can the 100,000's that have been employed in aviation the last 70 years kept quite about "chemtrails" maybe because they don't exist??????

While Wikileaks was a mass embarrassment for the US and caused no end of grief for the politicians, it was an awful revelation for conspiracists....no chemtrails, no secret Twin Tower destruction by Bush, no secret groups, no simulated moon landing, no Bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster....nothing mentioned nowhere!

I will repeat, of course they are up to no good as power corrupts - but don't give them that much credit as they seem to mess up most of what they touch!

To be fair I didn't ask you to describe your bookshelf; I asked you two simple questions.


Also, how many people worked on the Manhattan Project?

weisses

1 question

How can I distinguish a contrail from a chem-trail when looking up from the ground ?

Terry Gilliam Beard

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If that's true, then clearly you are a very confused individual and are denying the facts.

You keep mentioning 'facts', but you haven't given any. You just keep making strange claims.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There were people who denied pollution existed back in the last century as well

Nobody denies that they are pollution. I think you may be confused about what other people call 'chemtrails' - when conspiracy theorists use the term, they mean that the planes are deliberately spraying some chemicals that have nothing to do with the engines, with the intention of doing something evil to everyone (usually mind control or genocide).

If you believe that contrails are airplane exhaust gasses, containing water and various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel, you are absolutely right.

Terry Gilliam Beard

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, how many people worked on the Manhattan Project?

Many. But not nearly as many are claimed to be involved in this conspiracy for decades. And the Manhattan Project was rather easily contained - one country, one location, for a limited time, with a clear goal, during an episode of total war. And even then, they didn't keep it quiet for very long.

The Chemtrail conspiracists expect us to believe that this can go on all over the world for decades, hundreds of thousands of people involved, a massive ground operation that would dwarf what happens in the air (who makes the chemicals? who distributes them? who puts them on the plane? what part of the plane are they stored in? who designs and builds the planes without noticing the special spraying apparatus?)

You keep asking are familiar Manahattan Project. Of course we are. I trust you are familiar with Occam's Razor. Don't you think that hundreds of unanswered/unanswerable questions, claims that fly in the face of common sense, and a million other things point to this particular conspiracy being pure hokum? Or do you feel the need to defend every CT, regardless of how silly it is?

IrelandSpirit

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

You keep mentioning 'facts', but you haven't given any. You just keep making strange claims.

Nobody denies that they are pollution. I think you may be confused about what other people call 'chemtrails' - when conspiracy theorists use the term, they mean that the planes are deliberately spraying some chemicals that have nothing to do with the engines, with the intention of doing something evil to everyone (usually mind control or genocide).

If you believe that contrails are airplane exhaust gasses, containing water and various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel, you are absolutely right.

Yes, I do believe in 'normal' contrails. And also in persistent contrails, sometimes called chemtrails by some, which appear to have become the 'new normal' as regards contrails, or pollution, as evidenced by the fact there so much plane smog in our skies, it's even reducing our sunlight. We both know this is true, it has been established by NASA, by chemtrail deniers and believers alike.

And as you perhaps know, regardless of the toxicity of the methods employed ("various polluting chemicals caused by the burning of fuel"), reducing natural sunlight is detrimental to our health, can lead to many diseases, from depression to cancer. PubMed is full of studies in that regard, if you're interested. Humans need natural sunlight, as do plants and life in general.

This in itself should stop any bickering over semantics, chemtrail vs contrail, and instead focus our effort to clean up the sky. We're all affected by this, you, me our children, everybody, whether you or I believe contrails are chemtrails, or visa versa is actually irrelevant -- the sky is a mess regardless, the sun is blotted out regardless.

This is what is meant by 'only a fool fights in a burning house.'

pfurey101

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Many. But not nearly as many are claimed to be involved in this conspiracy for decades. And the Manhattan Project was rather easily contained - one country, one location, for a limited time, with a clear goal, during an episode of total war. And even then, they didn't keep it quiet for very long.

The Chemtrail conspiracists expect us to believe that this can go on all over the world for decades, hundreds of thousands of people involved, a massive ground operation that would dwarf what happens in the air (who makes the chemicals? who distributes them? who puts them on the plane? what part of the plane are they stored in? who designs and builds the planes without noticing the special spraying apparatus?)

You keep asking are familiar Manahattan Project. Of course we are. I trust you are familiar with Occam's Razor. Don't you think that hundreds of unanswered/unanswerable questions, claims that fly in the face of common sense, and a million other things point to this particular conspiracy being pure hokum? Or do you feel the need to defend every CT, regardless of how silly it is?

This!

And there was no social media, internet, camera phones, online videos in those days. No one looking for their "5 minutes of fame". Different age and different mentality...as such.

Brown Bomber

Terry Gilliam Beard wrote: »

Many.

How many? You'll find it was the ACTUAL hundreds of thousands keeping an actual dirty secret - the development of a mass-murder weapon which kills indiscrimately, though according to you this is impossible for these imaginary hundreds of thousands figure that you've pulled out of your hat as a convenient strawman.

Brown Bomber

weisses wrote: »

1 question

How can I distinguish a contrail from a chem-trail when looking up from the ground ?

Confirmation bias.