I think chemtrails are real breaking news

Pogopoint99 said:

Isn't that Evergreen Airline's 747 supertanker? I believe that's footage of it's fire fighting demonstration.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html

Yes, I know. In the link I provided the liquid being dropped from the plane is red and the other is clear...

Click to expand...

Awake knew well what that was, its impossible for him not to, since that video has been around since 2004. Chemmies have used it since that day to dishonestly claim that is chemtrail evidence, but its been debunked ever since then too.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt there. Lots of people have just arrived at the chemtrail theory part of their lives, and are rummaging through the big cardboard box full of chemtrail memorabilia for the first time. They see something that looks interesting, so they take it out and proudly hold it up.

I might seem silly to the seasoned chemtrail debunker, but if you've not seen it before, then it's new to you.

Mick said:

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt there.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but perhaps a better way to deal with it is to bring out the fact that the chemtrails leadership has not actively sought to educate their followers by letting them understand that things like forest fighting activity isn't remotely related to what they are seeing jets do at 30,000 feet.

The leadership are negligent in their responsibility to be informative. By doing so, people like Michael Murphy effectively have "set up" folks like 'Awake' to epic fails.

They 'set up' folks like awake to not understand or to be conversant on even a basic level about ordinary contrail formation and persistence mechanisms.

How does it feel, 'Awake', to know that Tankerenemy, Rosalind Peterson, Michael Murphy, and all the rest have Set You Up?

Why would they do that?

Some possible reasons:
They don't know.
They don't care.
They know but they care that YOU remain unaware.

How do you explain that when you come up against others who know more, your leadership has left you unprepared?

Who do you hold responsible for that?

I really want to know....

Sorry if you felt ridiculed. People get a bit frustrated when the same things keep coming up year after year.

Maybe we could focus on one thing at a time, try to narrow down the source of disagreement.

Are you also claiming that there can absolutely be NO persistant contrail outside the atmospheric parameters and I mean a contrail that lasts for hours?

Click to expand...

There can be no persistent contrails in conditions that do not support persistent contrails. Snowflakes don't exist for long unless it's below freezing. Same thing.

If a contrail is lasting for hours, that is because it exists in a region of ice supersaturation.

Does that answer your question?

awake101 said:

I don't believe that I ever claimed or insinuated that the evergreen airline's 747 supertanker was a chemtrail plane.

Click to expand...

Correct. You inquired about the picture and I explained it. End of story. I never accused you of anything. Believe it or not, I'm trying to get a grasp of what it is you are saying.

awake101 said:

Are you also claiming that there can absolutely be NO persistant contrail outside the atmospheric parameters and I mean a contrail that lasts for hours?

Click to expand...

If you're asking "can contrails last for hours". The answer is yes.

awake101 said:

Are you also claiming that there can absolutely be NO persistant contrail outside the atmospheric parameters and I mean a contrail that lasts for hours?

Click to expand...

Well are you making the claim of having discovered persistent contrails when it should be impossible to see them? If that is the claim you are making, then would love to see the actual evidence. Would this be something like just above the ground?

awake101 said:

...the persistant contrail suddenly appears and the one where there are 3 contrails of which 2 are persistant and the other practical not at all. Atmospheric conditions for all 3 engines are naturally the same. ?????

Click to expand...

I've seen this question before. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/29016/

The third contrail might not be from a jet engine at all. Some of the pilots claim that it could be the auxiliary power unit (APU). Others have argued that the APU is only in use on the ground to supply power while the engines are powered off. Yet others have argued that in some conditions the APU is on in flight for maximum redundancy. Finally, another suggested that the third trail might be caused by exhaust from the air conditioning pack. These all seem like reasonable answers, don't you think?

What do you think is causing the third contrail?

And just so we are on the same page here, the "third trail" that awake101 refered to is in this video, at 2:00



and looks like:



And even the maker of the video says it is coming from the APU

Glad to hear you are open to reason.

9/11 should probably go in another thread. I'm afraid I think you'll probably come around on that topic too, given time.

If it is a very momentary small trail from the back of the plane, its very likely to be water drained though the galley drain mast.

firepilot said:

If it is a very momentary small trail from the back of the plane, its very likely to be water drained though the galley drain mast.

Click to expand...

And as shown in the video, it isn't what makes the contrails, they are coming from the engines.

Sorry but 9/11 is a no brainer for me and perhaps you will come around on that, given time. I have followed your threads on 9/11 and I haven't changed my view on this and never will. To me chemtrails mean nothing compared to 9/11.

Again, thanks for your efforts and good luck!

Well, just consider how many people feel the same way about chemtrails. They have not changed their views, and they think they never will. yet they are still wrong.

I'm sure that you have changed some the details of your views about 9/11. I mean, you must have, in ten years new information must have come to your attention, making your position change slightly. The building 7 NIST report, for example.

It's confusing to some 911 truthers to point out that many refuse to believe that high strength solid metal travelling at 500mph can significantly damage steel building structures yet they are happy to accept the idea that lightweight gasses can.
The detonation of explosives results in the production of a large volume of lightweight gasses and the hot expansion of these gasses produces local pressure increases.
So they are often insisting that it is lightweight gas at pressure that more easily damages steel that a battering ram of metal at 500mph.
Which can do more damage to a structure? A. Fast moving gas.. B. Fast moving Solid
Compare the relative kinetic energies of both scenarios and the stored chemical energy in joules of a decent fuel load of an airliner compared to the chemical energy in joules of a missile as is often cited.

petrol/kerosene 42,000,000 joules per Kilogram
Gunpowder 3,000,000 joules per kilogram. (High explosive is similar)
757 fuel capacity.. 43,490 L
If they start to think in more logical terms much of the mystery evaporates.

That depends on who you are talking to. Lee was convinced that Kinetic Energy had nothing to do with, and all you had to do was look at Newton's third law.

I told him Newton's third law did not apply (as it's only applicable to pairs of point masses), but that just proved to be another complication to far.

You have to tailor your arguments to the individuals. And then of course you'll eventually come up against an individual who has modified their explanation to seemingly encapsulate your objection.

...

Hmm, I was looking for Richard Gage giving an explanation of the KE problem, but instead I found this gem:

​

Here it's is in context, at 24:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929&hl=en#

I'm sorry everybody, after viewing the following video i have turned from a chemtrail skeptic to a chemtrail believer. Watch this video and i GUARANTEE you will agree with it 100%!!

​

Hard to believe, but 10 years ago one chemtrail believer claimed that his rabbits had been assassinated because he was a chemtrail activist, had called into talk shows and written to his local newspaper. He also claimed that he had gotten a threatening phone call by a female voice impersonating his rabbit. I kid you not:
See 'wisequakker's' post down the page-
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001065.html

Richard(Box-Boy)Gage is now trying to bring to the big screen the real story behind 911 with the help of some rather famous actors.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...feature-film-focused-on-wtc-demolitions-.html
You gotta read the script part, propaganda at its finest. It's like some type of conspiracy fantasy where they finally have their day in court and all of their conspiracy ideas are at last vindicated. Of course our hero Richard Gage appears as the wise genius who single handily exposes the horrible government cover-up. Pretty damn funny...

Most of these responses are a huge attack on the scientific method. Part of science is using an open mind and not pre-disposed positions Just watch the link and I could not have said it any better. Enjoy your lung tumors..http://youtu.be/Y3c71qTKucw

I've noticed some "blowback," haha.. word must have got out J.. haha.. See you in science class buddy.. thanks for all you do your such an inspiration to all who are asleep.. thanks so much

I know it's so easy to see how steel box trusses can crush themselves at gravitational speeds and the fact that only three buildings in the history of steel and box truss construction have ever totally been brought down like that in what appears to be a controlled demolition. In my town we outlawed steel and concrete conctruction buildings cause they were falling down all over the place the concrete wrapped box trusses would just explode for no reason. We had skyscrapers and high rise trash blowing all over our streets, all that steel and concrete just blowing around it made our town look like a junk yard.

We even outlawed concrete sidewalks cause they would explode if someone threw a cigarette down on it.. It was a huge problem if you was walking in the park pushing your baby in a carriage, it would just explode for no reason.. no jet was hitting it or anything.. just blow up.. so we had to outlaw concrete sidewalks. Thank God someone did something.. Now we've replaced all our concrete with a much harder substance called Nano Thermite and wood. These are much stronger and less combustable.. plus we paint all the wood with the thermite paint to help protect it from hot fires. The thermite and wood can withstand heat up to 2100 degrees much higher than concrete and metal which will melt at 300 deg.. a little over the boiling point.

So if your town has skyscrapers falling down due to fire all over the place then I's suggest you use thermite to replace the concrete and wood to replace the steel.. it's much stronger and will withstand the fires much better. ! Just trying to help out..

Your link shows my fellow Sydney lad Professor Ian Plimer, now professor of mining in Adelaide, well known debunker, atheist and anti-creationist.
I have his book "telling Lies for God" . Have you read it?

Interestingly, Plimer argues in his book that conversing politely with creationists and other superstitious anti-reason folks is sometimes best done with direct ridicule. He argues that talking politely with flat earthers and young earth creationists gives them the impression that their opinion has equal merit to established scientific fact, like giving equal time "balanced" media coverage to someone who believes the moon is eaten monthly in cycles by a giant celestial bird when detailing a story on orbiting moon probes.
I don't know if there is any quantitative or qualitative evidence that his approach worked as it probably made his opponents so emotional and defensive in a fight or flight mode that they retracted even further into the less rational areas of their brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44LqmktXrg

GregMc said:

Interestingly, Plimer argues in his book that conversing politely with creationists and other superstitious anti-reason folks is sometimes best done with direct ridicule. He argues that talking politely with flat earthers and young earth creationists gives them the impression that their opinion has equal merit to established scientific fact, like giving equal time "balanced" media coverage to someone who believes the moon is eaten monthly in cycles by a giant celestial bird when detailing a story on orbiting moon probes.
I don't know if there is any quantitative or qualitative evidence that his approach worked as it probably made his opponents so emotional and defensive in a fight or flight mode that they retracted even further into the less rational areas of their brains.

Click to expand...

I think that at individual level, ridicule is best avoided. Consider awake101, if we had made fun of him, or told him he was stupid or uneducated, then he would probably not have considered the arguments as he did.

But the issue of false balance in the media is a valid one. We don't want to give the impression that there is some kind of 50/50 debate going on here. The reality (for chemtrails) is that there's overwhelming evidence they are contrails, and zero evidence that they are not. In addition there's a lot of evidence that the promoters of the theory deliberately ignore contradictory evidence, and fail to retract evidence that has been shown to be false.

Chemtrails IS essentially a wacky conspiracy theory, once you know all the facts (at least in most of its manifestations). But for those who believe it, it seems very reasonable - indeed it seems obvious and unassailable.

awake101 said:

But if there were, how would you proof it? Wouldn't you want to have samples from the contrails? Since we don't have them, there is no evidence so you are right. However, I cannot imagine that you are happy to win an argument this way.

Click to expand...

I agree totally, the people who say they weigh out the overwhelming evidence sound like a broke record.. ignore the facts, and side step the issue. How can this be a fair debate when the other side is like turning a blind eye to what hundreds of thousands of peoples are complaining about?

Mick said:

I think that at individual level, ridicule is best avoided. Consider awake101, if we had made fun of him, or told him he was stupid or uneducated, then he would probably not have considered the arguments as he did.

But the issue of false balance in the media is a valid one. We don't want to give the impression that there is some kind of 50/50 debate going on here. The reality (for chemtrails) is that there's overwhelming evidence they are contrails, and zero evidence that they are not. In addition there's a lot of evidence that the promoters of the theory deliberately ignore contradictory evidence, and fail to retract evidence that has been shown to be false.

Chemtrails IS essentially a wacky conspiracy theory, once you know all the facts (at least in most of its manifestations). But for those who believe it, it seems very reasonable - indeed it seems obvious and unassailable.

Click to expand...

Do you take medication for this condition.. O% evidence? Are you kidding me? Zero? There are Doctors who will treat you I think they are called psychoanalist.

Bunkerbuster said:

I agree totally, the people who say they weigh out the overwhelming evidence sound like a broke record.. ignore the facts, and side step the issue. How can this be a fair debate when the other side is like turning a blind eye to what hundreds of thousands of peoples are complaining about?

Click to expand...

Clearly no-one is " turning a blind eye to what hundreds of thousands of peoples are complaining about" - if we were then this forum would not exist - it is here precisely BECAUSE of people complaining about chemtrails.

However there is a difference between simply accepting what people say, and examining the evidence.

You seem to be saying that the world should simply accept the word of people complaining about chemtrails without examining the actual evidence that exists.

And that is irresponsible, at best, and (IMO) deceptive) at worst.

Firstly "doing something" without establishing exactly what the problem is is likely to be a massive waste of money - most likely taxpayers. And in this day and age of small Govt., etc taxpayers want to know that their money is being spent on things that they consider worthwhile as much as possible.

Secondly - because you have seen the actual evidence relating to chemtrails, you, personally, know that there is no credible evidence to support their existence. Therefore your protestations that the evidence should not be examined are trying to conceal this from the general populace - you are trying to censor science, and restrict lawfull knowledge.

Now whay would you want to do that? Why are you trying to ensure ignorance??

Bunkerbuster,

it has been said before, over and over:

The trails we see in the sky can be explained with existing, reproduceable knowledge. They look and behave like we can expect them to if we know the bits about the atmosphere.

Up to now, nobody has brought up a convincing argument why we would need a different explanation.

So - what exactly would we have to prove? We are perfectly happy (well, in some respects at least ).

If you want to convince the skeptics that the science of contrails is wrong, you would have to explain very well.

Regarding the number of complaints about "chemtrails": that's not a strong point. How many people are not complaining about them?

"Regarding the number of complaints about "chemtrails": that's not a strong point. How many people are not complaining about them? "

Well, according to Bunkerbuster, there are "hundreds of thousands of peoples are complaining..." , that would mean that around 7 billion people are NOT complaining.

JFDee said:

Bunkerbuster,

it has been said before, over and over:

The trails we see in the sky can be explained with existing, reproduceable knowledge. They look and behave like we can expect them to if we know the bits about the atmosphere.

Up to now, nobody has brought up a convincing argument why we would need a different explanation.

So - what exactly would we have to prove? We are perfectly happy (well, in some respects at least ).

If you want to convince the skeptics that the science of contrails is wrong, you would have to explain very well.

Regarding the number of complaints about "chemtrails": that's not a strong point. How many people are not complaining about them?

Click to expand...

Ok your right on that.. Le't me rephrase the statement or part there of... "only the smart people are complaining about chemtrails the rest are willing to be enslaved by Monsanto and give all they have for a scrap of food that has been modified GMO."

Sorry for being so vague, but I though you guys could see the difference. That's all

bunkerbuster said:

"only the smart people are complaining about chemtrails"

Click to expand...

OK, but if they are smart, why can't they explain how chemtrails look like - as opposed to contrails?

JFDee said:

OK, but if they are smart, why can't they explain how chemtrails look like - as opposed to contrails?

Click to expand...

They have you're just refusing to look.. we've posted videos where jets do not leave contrails and in the same picuture there are jets leaving these massive white lingering nonofiber filled waves of death drifting down on the sheeple. So it's not a lack of describing what they look like it's a lack of something else... total lack of something else.

Here this may be a little deep for you but I'm trying to get you the good information. All this is documented. Get a big glass of fluoride water and try to absorb some of this cutting edge news.


[video=youtube_share;fKCHWu5eECs]http://youtu.be/fKCHWu5eECs[/video]

If it's documented then where are the documents?

Here's the video on chemtrails and there are links to the public documents.. just a click away..[video=youtube_share;ni_fFmAyrWU]http://youtu.be/ni_fFmAyrWU[/video]

Here's another one 2/6

[video=youtube_share;4TjGAeydmmQ]http://youtu.be/4TjGAeydmmQ[/video]

Bunkerbuster, let me ask you a direct question:

Is there any situation you are aware of in which one jet in the sky would leave a short contrail, and at the same time, another nearby jet could leave a long persisting contrail?

Bunkerbuster said:

Here's the video on chemtrails and there are links to the public documents.. just a click away..

Click to expand...

There are links to infowars, etc. No links to documents.

What exactly is aversion you have to providing evidence to back up your claims? Don't you want to convince anyone?

Mick said:

Bunkerbuster, let me ask you a direct question:

Is there any situation you are aware of in which one jet in the sky would leave a short contrail, and at the same time, another nearby jet could leave a long persisting contrail?

Click to expand...

Mick... I've posted it right on this topic... please... in the same video.. jet flying same height another jet flying no contrail.. I'll post a video of where two planes are on plane finder one is known to spray chemicals and it has been well documented and the other was a regular jet.. no spray ..long chemtrail.. I'll post it.. Let ole Alex teach you about how our environment is being attacked and then I'll post up.. be sure to check out all the links..

Here's another one 3/6 try to watch..

[video=youtube_share;OwNUZOyqA0k]http://youtu.be/OwNUZOyqA0k[/video]

Here another one.. just like the chemtrails keep coming, one after another.. 4/6


[video=youtube_share;IsMKxEUZyN4]http://youtu.be/IsMKxEUZyN4[/video]