Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Jim, you post a 45 minute inchoate mess in a "chemtrail" forum and specific post, without any explanatory text and expect us to "learn something"?

The fuel consumption by NATO aircraft is dwarfed by civil airliner consumption which do not use JP8. Contrails are seen in many countries where JP8 is not used. You are peculiarly US centric. The VAST majority of aircraft forming contrails do not use JP8. They are regularly filmed by your cohort.

If you really believe that contrails are merely pollution, stop using the word "chemtrails" and stop posting in a "chemtrail" forum using a video with the word "chemtrail" prominent in the title. Otherwise people may suspect your true motive is to conflate the words "contrail" and "chemtrail" for your own purposes.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Contrails are not geoengineering, they are the bane of the aviation industry
The 'bane' of the industry? That seems a little hysterical. There are studies to see how much of an issue they really are and how concerned they should be about them, but they are hardly the 'bane'.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
The bane of the aviation industry is not contrails. It is the lack of peanuts/cookies on short haul flights. And the fact that we have to pay for head sets now to even watch the inflight entertainment. (sorry :D)
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Jim, you post a 45 minute inchoate mess in a "chemtrail" forum and specific post, without any explanatory text and expect us to "learn something"?

The fuel consumption by NATO aircraft is dwarfed by civil airliner consumption which do not use JP8. Contrails are seen in many countries where JP8 is not used. You are peculiarly US centric. The VAST majority of aircraft forming contrails do not use JP8. They are regularly filmed by your cohort.

If you really believe that contrails are merely pollution, stop using the word "chemtrails" and stop posting in a "chemtrail" forum using a video with the word "chemtrail" prominent in the title. Otherwise people may suspect your true motive is to conflate the words "contrail" and "chemtrail" for your own purposes.
[...]

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
As Aircraft Emissions Skyrocket, EPA Looks Into Regulation For First Time
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/05/3563670/aircraft-emissions-regulation-epa/

No mention of contrail regulation despite this:

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.

Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails by Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 Published online 29 March 2011

Bane...
 

PandyFackler

New Member
Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
Do you call visible car exhaust "chem-exhaust"? Of course the combustion of jet fuel produces pollutants, so does the combustion of most any other fuel... or any other thing ever, pretty much. Those pollutants are there regardless of whether or not contrails are present. The trail is created by frozen water vapor, it has nothing to do with the level of pollutants or carcinogens present. Chemtrail and Contrail are not interchangeable.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
you guys really crack me up with your control issues. I am able to use whatever words I like, and the more I look the more I confirm my belief that very little of ANY of this has been tested properly.

So, word nazi, I will use whatever words I choose.
Godwins law - and yes you can choose whatever words you use - but if you have a message and your words are not getting that message across then it seems a little counter-productive to be abusing everyone else.

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
no - that is not true - chemtrail is a myth, and contrail is not a descriptor for pollution - the pollution exists whether there is a contrail or not, and there is more of it around airports where engine contrails never occur (except in Antarctica, Alaska, Siberia, etc) than en-route.

so you can choose to continue to use misleading words in pursuit of some objective that I find opaque....or you could try to be understood.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
No mention of contrail regulation despite this:

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.

Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails by Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 Published online 29 March 2011

Bane...
but there is investigation into reducing contrails - eg NASA's ACCESS II programme
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
What a cop out- "chemtrails" has a very specific, purposeful connotation that you use to deliberately conflate the issue.

Cry "semantics" all you want but that is merely deflection from the truth.

BTW- the pollution is there whether there is a visible trail or not.

So...whats your point? plane exhaust is pollution? how enlightening.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
you guys really crack me up with your control issues. I am able to use whatever words I like, and the more I look the more I confirm my belief that very little of ANY of this has been tested properly.

So, word nazi, I will use whatever words I choose.

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
You have a patently open agenda. People such as yourself and Max Bliss can't prove your claims regarding "chemtrails" so you attack that problem by invoking the pollution angle.

So contrails become "the bane" of the aviation world. No they aren't. The science of them is the bane of the chemtrail movement which, semantics aside, you appear to be a fully involved participant.

The one difference between you and most chemtrail adherents is you seem to have read the science, and tacitly at least, realise it just can't be ignored.

But you do ignore the other big questions.
The weight/altitude/performance/logistical questions related to aviation which make a nonsense of the whole theory and which no adherent ever addresses other than simply making things up.

This is why I read that pilots don't know what is happening or do know and are "frightened" or are sociopaths who are happy to spray their own families for money, or have signed confidentiality agreements or any one of a hundred laughable, made up rationalisations, designed to side step massive chasms in the theory.

Conflating contrails with "chemtrails" is naked sophistry which fools no-one, particularly on this forum.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
[...]

Both chemtrail and contrail are high level descriptors for "aviation produced clouds" so argue semantics all you like, it's pollution.
Whether or not contrails form has no bearing whatsoever on the amount of pollutants emitted. So again, what is your point?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.
False analogy.

I could say that in the year 1996 I bought a new computer, and switched from AOL as an ISP to another provider....and started getting more emails suddenly. "Hence" the new computer was a 'conspiracy' to bombard me with unwanted email.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Tune in and learn something.
You didn't answer my question. (It was, "What time references are most notable, and to the point of that 45-minute long video?").

But of course, based on the "gish" so far, I expect that there really isn't anything to "learn" (from THAT particular video) that I don't already know, after over 40 years as a pilot.
 
Last edited:

TEEJ

Senior Member.
From the comments section.

upload_2014-12-18_23-38-9.png

Max Bliss. Good grief! I can't believe that you actually praise him in the video and thank him for posting a Rosario Marciano (Tanker Enemy) video. Seriously a Rosario Marciano video has you "looking for answers"? Rosario has already manipulated the video for his own purposes and Max has already fallen for it. Max is notorious for claiming to see low altitude "chemtrails" so it is no wonder he fell for the 6,000 feet claim. Rosario's aircraft recognition skills are deplorable. There is no C-17 Globemaster in the video. The lead aircraft is a KC-135.

What you see in the video is an E-3 Sentry decoupling from a real or practice air-to-air refuelling. The receiver will
retard throttles to idle and establish a positive rate of descent in order to distance itself from the tanker. The pilot will then throttle up. What is so hard to understand that the contrails will stop and restart during this procedure?


The following video shows the separation manoeuvre at the end.


I do hope that during your long conversation with Max that he didn't get you interested in chembusters? He thinks that the French authorities are interested in his chembusters and especially when he boosts them with vinegar. He thinks that he is getting visits from black helos and Mirage jets due to the power of his chembusters. :rolleyes: Is this really a man that you should be quoting and befriending in your search for answers?

https://www.facebook.com/ChemtrailAwareness/posts/10151647947070396

The videos went when his YT Channel was taken down. Video description from Max.

 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
I cite those explosive incidences as they were quotes from the Colonel who proposed the switch to JP-8 during the NATO single fuel concept conversion between 1988-1996. The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

These are not coincidences.

ps. I spoke with Mick West on the phone for 45 minutes prior to releasing all of this. He knew nothing of the NATO Pipeline Committee, the Single Fuel Concept, or any of this, so quit acting like none of this is a surprise to you. K?
Yes, they are coincidences and nonsense.

Maybe it was the title of this paper which inspired the fantasy and nonsense of chemtrails.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Maybe it was the title of this paper which inspired the fantasy and nonsense of chemtrails.
Yes...and again...(I try, I try)....

Let's use my very basic math to understand (hopefully) the "nonsense" that IS the myth of "chem"trails.

Please envision just ONE singular contrail....that is only 50-feet diameter, and ONE mile in length.

This is a total volume (per this Online Calculator of nearly 12 MILLION cubic feet! (Please use a 'radius' of 25 feet, and a "height" of 5,280 feet = one mile)...OK????

Now....such a "volume" is hard to imagine....unless you think of it as a CUBE....about 228 feet per side (228 x 228 x 228 = 11,852,352).

This can be "calculated" easily, online.

A 'cube' of the size mentioned above could ALSO be "envisioned" as a 20-story building, with a base of 228 by 228 feet.

(Interesting to note that the former WTC Towers 1 & 2 were only 208 feet wide!!)

Over and over again, this aspect of science is presented to "chem"trail 'believers'.

There DOES NOT EXIST an airplane capable of carrying that much "material" to "spray"!!!

Just NOT possible!!
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Yes, they are coincidences and nonsense.

Maybe it was the title of this paper which inspired the fantasy and nonsense of chemtrails.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
I think that preserving the fun of the myth is probably why CTs seem to always skip the prominent disclaimer:

"This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only."
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
I agree that air traffic impact on the environment has to be focused on, given the growth rate we are seeing.
It will indeed become a huge problem for airlines.

However, it's obvious from the papers you quoted that there are two separate aspects to the exhaust of jet planes and its impact.
  • There is CO2 which acts directly by changing the properties of the atmosphere.
  • There is water which can have a trigger effect, causing induced cloud cover which in turn impacts the infrared 'budget' of the Earth surface.
Note that if we get rid of the CO2 by using hydrogen as energy source, there would still be water in the exhaust, no matter if direct combustion or fuel cells are used.

Now, do I understand you correctly in that you are trying to mix those two aspects of air traffic emissions in one word and give it an entirely different meaning than it has in the global usage?

Of course you are free to do so but if you don't explain your individual definition on every occasion you're using the word, you are deliberately misleading people.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I spoke with Mick West on the phone for 45 minutes prior to releasing all of this. He knew nothing of the NATO Pipeline Committee, the Single Fuel Concept, or any of this
I think "any of this" is perhaps rather too broad a description of my ignorance. I'd not heard of the NATO Pipeline Committee or the Single Fuel Concept, but they are hardly earth-shattering knowledge. Refueling logistics, that's all.


I cite those explosive incidences as they were quotes from the Colonel who proposed the switch to JP-8 during the NATO single fuel concept conversion between 1988-1996. The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

These are not coincidences.
Not entirely no, but not perhaps in the way you suggest. The chemtrail conspiracy theory started as a conspiracy theory about JP-8 being a bit toxic. The "contrails don't persist" meme grew from that.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory started as a conspiracy theory about JP-8 being a bit toxic. The "contrails don't persist" meme grew from that.
Exactly. Back in the day when that happened, and you can read about it right here, usenet was the place to go for discussion about things. If you want to confirm things, do a usenet search for contrails(the [low -brow] descriptor "chemtrails" hadn't been coined yet) and you will see that the inception of the idea came about immediately after Richard Finke's email of 17 Sep. 1997, preceded by some talk radio rumors spread by Finke's cohort Larry Wayne Harris.

Jim's entrance into the field, which can be seen in his earliest posts here, came along when he was still enthralled with many ideas which got corrected through our help. At the present, he is still trying to salvage hiw Climateviewer site which it's clar he worked very hard to develop, and he feels he has a middle ground position where both chemtrail believers and Metabunk participants are extremists.

Though he says he doesn't argue semantics it's clear enough that his conflation amounts to exactly that, yet he soldiers on desperately hoping to set both parties straight.

He's tenacious and slightly stubborn, and perhaps there are unknown influences pushing him. In my opinion, most of his mistakes stem from technical mis-readings, exaggeration, and general CT thinking.
I hope he has a good year and continues the progress he has made over the past two seasons.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
Max's mate Harry Rhodes has some exciting news! Apparently the 17th January 2015 is one for your diaries! Also "legal notices of observations" will be issued before the 2015 Paris Climate Action! Well Max likes it!:)

upload_2014-12-29_18-52-5.png

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/10152924421610396

https://www.facebook.com/harry.rhodes.750/posts/1517909895157544

Max has been busy taking some images of "Scala Waves" and Harry has been doing the "analysis". You couldn't make it up but guess what Harry has!


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIS7ej_kkga78aciuDD1Jsg/videos
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
Harry bumbling about on the web! Barium and Aluminium results on DEFRA website and he comes up with the following!

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/non...data&network=rm&year=2013&pollutant=1146#view



Harry filming in Wolverhampton, UK.


Harry claims no transponders!

Very strange that aviation enthusiasts can monitor these aircraft and Harry can't!

They are four Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire.



http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=107777

Some of the Typhoons were detected on SBS

http://forum.scramble.nl/viewtopic.php?p=752708&sid=05d2de411d44f4231fac3d3f374e8520

Comment from Max! :rolleyes:

upload_2014-12-30_16-41-55.png
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
I think that preserving the fun of the myth is probably why CTs seem to always skip the prominent disclaimer:

"This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only."
Right... because think tank papers never make it to the real world right? Wrong. Owning the Weather in 2025 was presented at the US Army Test Technology Symposium in 1997, one year after the completion of AF2025. Judging by the slide notes, this was not just a thought experiment:

US military discusses future of Weather Warfare despite ENMOD ban
http://climateviewer.com/2013/11/16...-future-of-weather-warfare-despite-enmod-ban/

 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
You are not the bane of aviation, flight pollution is:

Hate Chemtrails? ACT NOW! Earthjustice sues EPA!
http://climateviewer.com/2014/12/30/hate-chemtrails-act-now-earthjustice-sues-epa/

EARTHJUSTICE WILL SUE EPA TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION FROM SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/...bal-warming-pollution-from-ships-and-aircraft

 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
I agree that air traffic impact on the environment has to be focused on, given the growth rate we are seeing.
It will indeed become a huge problem for airlines.

However, it's obvious from the papers you quoted that there are two separate aspects to the exhaust of jet planes and its impact.
  • There is CO2 which acts directly by changing the properties of the atmosphere.
  • There is water which can have a trigger effect, causing induced cloud cover which in turn impacts the infrared 'budget' of the Earth surface.
Note that if we get rid of the CO2 by using hydrogen as energy source, there would still be water in the exhaust, no matter if direct combustion or fuel cells are used.

Now, do I understand you correctly in that you are trying to mix those two aspects of air traffic emissions in one word and give it an entirely different meaning than it has in the global usage?

Of course you are free to do so but if you don't explain your individual definition on every occasion you're using the word, you are deliberately misleading people.
I understand your point and respect your opinion. However, I see more than two issues:

  • Toxic chemicals, like the SARA313 chemicals in Stadis 450 and SPEC-Aid 8Q462, bio-accumulation issues may be present since Stadis 450 has been in use since 1962... not to mention the nanoparticle aspects...
  • Cloud creation - EPA will likely regulate ship track and contrail production as both are clearly pollution and affecting climate in multiple harmful ways
  • Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and yes the cryo-plane would just exacerbate that problem. They are planning a fusion powered plane in 10 years...
  • Biofuels: which ACCESS II is counting on as a cure-all for the BANE of aviation. Biofuels may reduce sulfur and knock down carbon black emissions, but in the end they will lead to more climate change as many studies are pointing out that ethanol production from corn husks are causing the current dust bowl conditions in California and the rest of the west coast.
  • Sulfuric Acid levels in the atmosphere are SKYROCKETING. Look up acid rain and remember planes are still making it despite the medias ban on the term.
  • and CO2 is last on my list
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution, not normal.
Do you mean not NATURAL? Certainly contrails are not NATURAL, but it is certainly NORMAL for aircraft to produce contrails when conditions are right.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.
Jet airliners produce only a fraction of all air pollution that is emitted by the billions of other machines that burn petrochemical fuels.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.
why would you claim that when Metabunk members repeatedly say to YOU it is pollution?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-debates-chemtrails.1648/page-12#post-138123

even I know its pollution and i dont need to "feel it" to know it.
do a site search for "pollution" and you will see dozens upon dozens of posts admitting planes cause pollution (ALL combustion produces pollutants). here's just a few examples.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/deadly-emissions-1-contribution-of-aviation-emissions-to-harmful-air-pollution.4561/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bbc-longer-flights-to-curb-vapour-trails.3849/page-3#post-111698
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/14-years-of-chemtrails-comments-and-suggestions.100/page-6#post-137445
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-chemtrail-plane-and-other-unlabeled-photos-from-facebook-etc.1318/page-3#post-1076
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Debunked: Max Bliss and the Berlin Declaration Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Max Bliss performs seamless 180 U-Turn on global warming. Contrails and Chemtrails 13
TWCobra Debunked-Max Bliss implying that aluminium can be added to modern turbo-fan engine fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
TWCobra Max Bliss inadvertently debunks most chemtrail theories Contrails and Chemtrails 10
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked-Aircraft engine oil systems used to dispense Chemtrail chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Statement from Michael Mulder of Aerotoxic.org regard claims by Max Bliss Contrails and Chemtrails 1
HappyMonday Max Bliss - Anonymous Chemtrails 'Airline insider' speaks out Contrails and Chemtrails 54
TheMindBoggles Max Bliss & David Lim - Genuine concern or fear mongering? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked (again) Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
I Nathan Oakley's Flat Earth "Debates". Flat Earth 69
Hama Neggs Mike Glynn debates Peter Kusznir with Madisonstar Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Jay Reynolds Debunking in Live Debates Practical Debunking 4
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Dan Page idea: a "Debunked" Stamp Practical Debunking 9
Z 3 military helicopters Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
MikeG Giant Snowflakes [Rimed Dendrites] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Balance Blatant photoshop deceit of BP refueling tank Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top