Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Earth Changes / Global Warming / Chemtrails / Weather Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-10-2014, 12:39 AM   #701
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
sucahyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
Well aluminium causes alzeimers among other health problems

So i'm gonna stick my neck out here and say that the spraying of aluminium particulates into the skies over our heads which will then be breathed in by us as well as landing in our water supplies and crops and the animals that we eat will be bad for our health

Noticed an uptick in alzeimer in recent years? check the figures
Make no mistake. Trails would still be harmfull to your health even if they use babies powder to spray.

Or are you one of those people who think the spraying will be harmless if they spray sulfur instead?
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants

Last edited by sucahyo; 13-10-2014 at 12:39 AM.
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2014, 08:57 PM   #702
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
Well aluminium causes alzeimers among other health problems

So i'm gonna stick my neck out here and say that the spraying of aluminium particulates into the skies over our heads which will then be breathed in by us as well as landing in our water supplies and crops and the animals that we eat will be bad for our health

Noticed an uptick in alzeimer in recent years? check the figures

Good thing nobody is spraying aluminum then. Unless you have credible evidence to the contrary.

Aluminum is however one of the main components of the soil. On average, about 8% of it consists of aluminum. So it's also going to be in the dust that flies around in the air, as well as in the sludge that they tested in WITWATS.

There's however not a shred of evidence that airliners are spraying anything other than H2O, CO2 and trace elements of burned jet fuel. In fact the H2O in a contrail is cleaner than the bottled water you can buy.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2014, 12:55 AM   #703
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
sucahyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
There's however not a shred of evidence that airliners are spraying anything other than H2O, CO2 and trace elements of burned jet fuel. In fact the H2O in a contrail is cleaner than the bottled water you can buy.
Trails need seed to grow. Without those seed, trails won't form. That seed is not H2O. trace element can not be ignored.

If jet plane only spray H2O then they would do a good thing. But reality is not that nice. We need to wake up from the dream world.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...crophysics.pdf
"Contrail cirrus may replace natural cirrus or alter natural cirrus properties by competition for the available water vapor."

Competition means the trails trying to rob the water from their surrounding. Trails do not add water, they rob water.

http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/science...llenberg72.pdf
"The measured water mass within the contrail was found to be four orders of magnitude greater than that computed as a combustion product. the overall effec of sub tropopause jet traffic is likely to lower the water abundance at the most traveled levels."
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2014, 01:31 AM   #704
indolering
Senior Member
 
indolering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
Good thing nobody is spraying aluminum then. Unless you have credible evidence to the contrary.

Aluminum is however one of the main components of the soil. On average, about 8% of it consists of aluminum. So it's also going to be in the dust that flies around in the air, as well as in the sludge that they tested in WITWATS.

There's however not a shred of evidence that airliners are spraying anything other than H2O, CO2 and trace elements of burned jet fuel. In fact the H2O in a contrail is cleaner than the bottled water you can buy.
Are you denying that chemtrails exist, that jets which do not follow normal flight patterns are not spraying a lethal cocktail into the air worldwide...? If so, there's more than a 'shred' of evidence that we are being poisoned by a secretive plan to debilitate the masses in preparation for takeover. I encourage you to examine the evidence. There's plenty to find if you look.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2014, 05:48 AM   #705
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
Trails need seed to grow. Without those seed, trails won't form. That seed is not H2O. trace element can not be ignored.

If jet plane only spray H2O then they would do a good thing. But reality is not that nice. We need to wake up from the dream world.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...crophysics.pdf
"Contrail cirrus may replace natural cirrus or alter natural cirrus properties by competition for the available water vapor."

Competition means the trails trying to rob the water from their surrounding. Trails do not add water, they rob water.
That's not entirely true. Jet engines generate 1.3 gallons of H2O per burned gallon of jet fuel, so H2O is produced there. Contrails rob no more water than any cirrus cloud would. They are cirrus clouds, in effect, and need circumstances of saturation or supersaturation for them to exist in the first place.

Quote:
url]http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf[/url]
"The measured water mass within the contrail was found to be four orders of magnitude greater than that computed as a combustion product. the overall effec of sub tropopause jet traffic is likely to lower the water abundance at the most traveled levels."
Umm yes.. so what? That doesn't mean there aren't persistent contrails though, does it?
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2014, 05:56 AM   #706
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indolering View Post
Are you denying that chemtrails exist, that jets which do not follow normal flight patterns are not spraying a lethal cocktail into the air worldwide...? If so, there's more than a 'shred' of evidence that we are being poisoned by a secretive plan to debilitate the masses in preparation for takeover. I encourage you to examine the evidence. There's plenty to find if you look.
Well I'd say it's the other way around. You seem to be claiming they do exist, so you'd need something to make that likely. The best way to do that is to provide evidence. So far most of the 'evidence'i've seen consists of pictures of normal contrails and patterns in the sky, but anyone who knows a bit about aviation and meteorology will tell you those are normal and expected effects of high altitude aviation. These contrails have been around for some 70 years, and if they are supposed to have some kind of chemical in them, nobody has detected it yet, including all the people monitoring air quality (such as the EPA).

So the burden is on you. Contrails are a well known phenomenon. You'lll have to explain why all the known science about them is wrong, and then make it likely that it;s actually chemicals that cause them. Then you have to explain HOW they are sprayed. So far all pictures indicate that it's regular commercial airliners. So where are they storing those chemicals? Who puts them on the planes? Who installs the devices that spray them, who maintains them, who installs them, and so on. The list of 'people in the know'would have to include millions of individuals, yet there are zero credible whistleblowers.

There are just a bunch of people who don't seem to understand some facts concerning aviation and meteorology.

So bring the evidence, and if it's sufficient, you'll convince me and many others.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2014, 12:59 AM   #707
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
sucahyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
That's not entirely true. Jet engines generate 1.3 gallons of H2O per burned gallon of jet fuel, so H2O is produced there. Contrails rob no more water than any cirrus cloud would. They are cirrus clouds, in effect, and need circumstances of saturation or supersaturation for them to exist in the first place.

Umm yes.. so what? That doesn't mean there aren't persistent contrails though, does it?
What make you think you are correct?

Jet engine release particle. This particle act as seed for ice crystal. Water from the burned fuel will cling to it, but it is known that the rest of the water come not from the fuel, but from its surrounding, the atmosphere.

This is NASA's website about Contrails Education, in a page titled "Contrails Science"
http://web.archive.org/web/201110171...u/science.html
"Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide) , but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air. In one example reported by Knollenburg (October 1972, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Pages 1367-1374), the amount of moisture released by the burning of jet fuel from a research aircraft was 1.7 grams of water for every meter of flight path. However, the total water measured in a persistent contrail produced by the aircraft was conservatively measured (that is, it was likely an underestimate) to be between 20700 to 41200 grams of water for every meter of the contrail path! Nearly all of the contrail is created from the moisture in the atmosphere. "


Persistent trails is a sign of jet particle robbing water from the atmosphere. those trails are pollution.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2014, 06:23 AM   #708
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
What make you think you are correct?

Jet engine release particle. This particle act as seed for ice crystal. Water from the burned fuel will cling to it, but it is known that the rest of the water come not from the fuel, but from its surrounding, the atmosphere.

This is NASA's website about Contrails Education, in a page titled "Contrails Science"
http://web.archive.org/web/201110171...u/science.html
"Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide) , but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air. In one example reported by Knollenburg (October 1972, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Pages 1367-1374), the amount of moisture released by the burning of jet fuel from a research aircraft was 1.7 grams of water for every meter of flight path. However, the total water measured in a persistent contrail produced by the aircraft was conservatively measured (that is, it was likely an underestimate) to be between 20700 to 41200 grams of water for every meter of the contrail path! Nearly all of the contrail is created from the moisture in the atmosphere. "


Persistent trails is a sign of jet particle robbing water from the atmosphere. those trails are pollution.
Robbing? I don't see your point. All that may be happening is that H2O gets displaced. But after 70 years of contrail producing aircraft and 42 years after mr Knollenberg expressed his opinions, there seems to be no shortage of H2O up there.

Do you agree with mr. Knollenberg that contrails are effectively the same thing as cirrus clouds?
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2014, 01:16 AM   #709
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
sucahyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
Robbing? I don't see your point. All that may be happening is that H2O gets displaced. But after 70 years of contrail producing aircraft and 42 years after mr Knollenberg expressed his opinions, there seems to be no shortage of H2O up there.

Do you agree with mr. Knollenberg that contrails are effectively the same thing as cirrus clouds?
By absorping the water from their surrounding, those trails influence weather, they can cancel rain (personal observation).

Yes, trails make cirrus:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE_CD1...PAPERS/136.PDF
"Cirrus clouds can evolve from spreading persistent contrails known as primary cirrus or contrail cirrus"

But it would be different cirrus:
http://www3.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~schne...hapter%208.pdf
"Aircraft influence high clouds indirectly by injecting aerosol particles that may act as heterogeneous ice nuclei at some point after emission. In the absence of aircraft emissions, a cirrus cloud would not have formed or the resulting cirrus would have different properties."

I guess you forgot my previous link:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...crophysics.pdf
"Contrail cirrus may replace natural cirrus or alter natural cirrus properties by competition for the available water vapor."

Also:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/420...-4203-2007.pdf
"We underscore that contrail cirrus can exert an indirect effect on cirrus on their own. If cirrus clouds form in the presence of contrail cirrus, the background cirrus may have different properties, because its crystals nucleate in regions with preexisting ice. Contrail cirrus may compete with background cirrus for the available water vapor, altering its microphysical and optical properties."

I translate the word compete as: cirrus from the trails can eliminate existing cirrus.

Why do you try so hard in defending pollutant? Do you enjoy sky full of trails?
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2014, 08:06 AM   #710
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Well Sucahayo, that's all very interesting, speculating about what might be or would have been. Contrails probably ARE a factor in climate change, and research should be done and is being done in that area. Until the day we find a solution to them, they're an unfortunate side effect of jet travel.

But we're debating the existence of 'chemtrails' in this forum, which is a theory (if you can call it that) that maintains that chemicals are being sprayed on purpose by airliners.

What that purpose is depends on which chemmie you ask, there seems to be no concensus, and the answers differ according to what the 'theory du jour' is.

That's what i'm here to debate.

Now if you want to move the goalpost and talk about pollution, fine, but you'll have to do it without me, since that's not what we're debating here. Maybe you can start your own thread about it though, since it IS an interesting subject.

Last edited by payt69; 23-10-2014 at 08:14 AM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2014, 01:29 AM   #711
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
sucahyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I just point out your mistake in contrails knowledge.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2014, 04:07 AM   #712
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
I just point out your mistake in contrails knowledge.
I don't think you have done that. Most of the stuff you're showing is speculative in nature.. but if there's something conclusive you can show me, then I'm open to that of course.

Anyway.. so what's your opinion on chemtrails? Do you think they're real?

Last edited by payt69; 24-10-2014 at 04:10 AM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2014, 01:50 PM   #713
nanny nutty
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 262
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Oh what a joy to welcome a new chemtrail troll to the forum!
Sorry payt69, it has all been said before.We're getting bored now.
Plenty of info online for those who genuinely don't know about chemtrails.
nanny nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2014, 09:01 PM   #714
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanny nutty View Post
Oh what a joy to welcome a new chemtrail troll to the forum!
Sorry payt69, it has all been said before.We're getting bored now.
Plenty of info online for those who genuinely don't know about chemtrails.
Oh I know all about what's being claimed about chemtrails.

It's just that everything i've seen turns out to be nonsense. Starting with the notion that contrails can't persist. Chemtrail believers claim that every time, but always fail to explain why that should be the case.

I'm supposing you adhere to that belief too, so maybe you explain how that works.

Just assume i'm a paid disinfo shill troll whatever, it's all fine with me. Try to stick to the facts, and you have some chance of convincing me.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2014, 04:40 AM   #715
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
sucahyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

To tell the truth, I believe Nasa's scientist speculation more. Especially when some of them deducted after observing, sampling, simulating the behaviour of contrails.

For me the real question is if we should reduce contrails or not. Why bother to do meaningless argument wether chemtrails are real or not. No one really have strong argument anyway.

The question is, if we ignore the chemtrails believer for a moment, when a lot of academic / legitimate science express concern, worry that contrails become a serious problem, there are people who are ignorant and think it is ok to have sky filled with contrails. They are many scientist want to stop contrails and already post solution, but I guess the level of ignorance is too high.

The important point is if contrails is bad or not.

Should we stop contrails or not? But I guess, a denier would claim that it is impossible to stop contrails (despite many scientific solution has been proposed), that the only way to stop contrails is to stop flight (despite many scientific solution show otherwise). I guess they forgot how car used to produce a lot of smoke and now there is less smoke. I am sure there are people who hate smoking car back then.

From my perspective, chemtrails believer is more sane.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2014, 07:14 AM   #716
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
To tell the truth, I believe Nasa's scientist speculation more. Especially when some of them deducted after observing, sampling, simulating the behaviour of contrails.

For me the real question is if we should reduce contrails or not. Why bother to do meaningless argument wether chemtrails are real or not. No one really have strong argument anyway.

The question is, if we ignore the chemtrails believer for a moment, when a lot of academic / legitimate science express concern, worry that contrails become a serious problem, there are people who are ignorant and think it is ok to have sky filled with contrails. They are many scientist want to stop contrails and already post solution, but I guess the level of ignorance is too high.
Well if a solution to contrails would show up, I'd be all for it. But I'm not aware of such a solution, other than flying at lower altitudes where contrails are less likely to happen. But of course flying at those altitudes would be less economical, and airlines are all about being economical.

Studies are being made to see if it's possible to avoid airspace that is likely to generate contrails. But once again, that'd mean being in the air for a longer time, burning more fuel, and less economic.

Quote:
The important point is if contrails is bad or not.

Should we stop contrails or not? But I guess, a denier would claim that it is impossible to stop contrails (despite many scientific solution has been proposed), that the only way to stop contrails is to stop flight (despite many scientific solution show otherwise). I guess they forgot how car used to produce a lot of smoke and now there is less smoke. I am sure there are people who hate smoking car back then.
Contrails aren't the same thing as smoke though. If you'd drive a car in comnditions where a jetliner produces contrails, a car would produce one too. It's inherent to combustion engines and to compression/expansion of air.

Quote:
From my perspective, chemtrails believer is more sane.
More sane than who?
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2014, 11:15 AM   #717
nanny nutty
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 262
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Please ignore the troll everyone.
nanny nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2014, 04:36 PM   #718
thermion
Senior Member
 
thermion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,293
Likes: 909 (599 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanny nutty View Post
Please ignore the troll everyone.
No. Don't ignore anyone, particularly if they happen to have a different opinion to you. Just give clear, unambiguous replies to challenging questions. Do we want to get to the truth, or just sit here all in heated agreement? Calling anyone a troll just because they have a contrary opinion I don't think is in the spirit of this forum.

The evidence must be corralled, examined, bad evidence discarded and new evidence collected.

I'd like to know where all the millions of tons of this stuff is being made without anyone knowing anyone who works in factories producing it. Or how it's moved around the world in enormous quantities, apparently invisibly, with no acccidents.

Not only that, international traders would notice something very odd going on when huge quantities of the raw materials are being bought up and apparently just disappearing.

And another thing Why don't you ask about chemtrails on the uk.science.weather forum, or an equivalent forum in whatever country you are in? There are some professional meteorologists there, but most are amateurs and have no reason to cover up some huge conspiracy. In fact they'd all absolutely love to reveal the true 'smoking gun' evidence of the chemtrail conspiracy to the world.

They all understand atmospheric physics, understand how temperature and moisture can vary abruptly in short horizontal and vertical distances, so can explain to you what you can see.

thermion

Last edited by thermion; 25-10-2014 at 09:45 PM. Reason: clarity
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 03:15 PM   #719
nanny nutty
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 262
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Sorry thermion, but I've been here long enough to recognise a-ok, lets call him a' time-waster'.You will never convince me that I am seeing harmless vapour trails.I have seen these planes at work on numerous occasions.On one particularly hot and sunny day I witnessed six or seven of them flying from different directions,passing directly above my flat,belching out their thick,double trails,clouding the sky and blocking the sun.The very fact that governments deny all knowledge of such aircraft should be reason enough to suspect that whatever is happening overhead is not in our best interests.
nanny nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 04:15 PM   #720
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanny nutty View Post
Sorry thermion, but I've been here long enough to recognise a-ok, lets call him a' time-waster'.You will never convince me that I am seeing harmless vapour trails.I have seen these planes at work on numerous occasions.On one particularly hot and sunny day I witnessed six or seven of them flying from different directions,passing directly above my flat,belching out their thick,double trails,clouding the sky and blocking the sun.The very fact that governments deny all knowledge of such aircraft should be reason enough to suspect that whatever is happening overhead is not in our best interests.
So what about all of that makes you think those trails are anything other than H2O?

If a regular cloud moves in front of the sun, do you also think it has to be a chemical cloud?

And since when do governments deny the existence of jetliners?
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.