@
Enemem Uh as I've already stated cloud seeding =/= chem trails or prove their existence also why would it need to when cloud seeding is well documented as a way or providing weather change for the benefit of a country's people, or for the destruction of an opposing force. Kind of hard to hide what is already known and then mask it as something else.
They're contrails and until proven otherwise, I'm sure you can find a scientific article on the matter, dont be shy.
First of all, I'm pretty sure I didn't say chem-trails exist. Merely asking the question as to the referenced video. Someone mentioned that if you added either something to fuel or dispersed from a separate tank, then it would affect the distance and performance of the planes. If 1,000 lbs were added then maybe it would make a difference, some planes are however capable of taking more than this as a payload. This begs the question how much of the imaginary chemicals would you need? My statement, that snow was created, allegedly, with only 6lbs of chemical merely indicated that maybe only a small amount would be needed. That's all I was saying. And I'm sure that's pretty close to what I said, so isn't that what I said?
While you have not specifically mentioned in this thread that you believe Chem-trails exist you have dismissed and/or ignored evidence that clearly shows they don't exist and that no conspiracy exists around them, while at the same time presenting supposed evidence in support in a positive light.
Basically your stance and bias present you as a supporter of Chem-trails.
You say that I've ignored evidence that chemtrails don't exist. This is a question unrelated to my OP, but it's no matter. Evidence that something doesn't exist, is pretty difficult to find.
Just because I don't know, doesn't make me a supporter of 'the conspiracy', and I'm certainly not a supporter of chem-trails ! If this puts me opposite to you, then presumably you KNOW there are NOT chemtrails . In the same way you KNOW that there is no God/Aliens. I unfortunately know that I don't know whether the forementioned two subjects exist or don't. There are more than 2 camps, not just believers and non-believers.
It reads "
B2".
Could you please state your criteria again so that we're all on the same page?
Semantics, kind of. Sometimes asking the same question again, and again, can elicit different responses, I find that asking different questions can give you a fuller picture. My verbage was probably out of whack, hope you understand.
Only you're not asking particularly serious questions.
What you're doing is asking leading questions in the hope you'll strike gold that we're all somehow wrong about chemtrails.
Mind-reading. You haven't a clue why I'm posting what I'm posting, but that's okay.
Don't try and dress what you're doing up as science. If it was science you'd have been able to find all these answers for yourself, and would have started the thread with an explanation of both sides of the chemtrails argument, perhaps furnishing it with your own views - and the debate would have gone from there.
Just because I haven't got solid proof of anything doesn't mean I'm not a scientist.
Instead, you post random bits of conspiracy dross every time people post evidence for why chemtrails aren't a thing, without bothering to counter or refute those points. You're either incredibly poor at creating balanced, educated debates, or you've got an agenda to peddle. I'm leaning towards the latter.
The evidence that chem-trails presented, namely, persistent trails do not contain chemicals (for whatever purpose) because the jet engines would a)break or b)chemicals would breakdown, is hardly a proof(although if someone has done experiments with data to prove what has been said, I would accept it as fact. But this doesn't exempt the argument of a separate delivery system. That's hardly my fault. I only came in here to ask what was on the video.
That bit was called "sarcasm". I was half expecting you to use the fact the video had been pulled as evidence it was something people didn't want the world to see.
And yet you've not gone "oh right, my mistake", you've continued to put forward various bits of supposed evidence for chemtrails existing. And continue to do so every time someone says "no, that's not chemtrails either". I'm sure you'll do the same again when someone refutes the Wikipedia quote about cloud seeding.
Hey, you just admitted that I admitted that I'd made a mistake. What exactly was my mistake?
Because literally tens of thousands of people work in the airline industry and at least a handful of them would be very aware that something wasn't routine.
There are also tens of thousands of independent scientists around the world taking atmospheric readings, who'd be able to spot unusual signatures, including those not visible to the naked eye.
First part is an assumption/opinion, not a proof. Second part relies on scientists who a)looking for relevent data b)would be prepared to stand up and say it's happening, a bit like the spanish inquisition.
Incidentally, have any of you ever looked for evidence that chem-trails exist? Or just decided they don't.
