Chemtrails?

[TenEightyOne]

I gather that the overall purpose of chemtrailing (is that the word?) is to get a chemical into the population.

If so, spraying it from jetliners on prescribed airways is a stupid idea to begin with, and that's before you even start to explore the engineering of the method.

@BobK, OMG, modified 777 etc etc

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I gather that the overall purpose of chemtrailing (is that the word?) is to get a chemical into the population.

If so, spraying it from jetliners on prescribed airways is a stupid idea to begin with, and that's before you even start to explore the engineering of the method.

@BobK, OMG, modified 777 etc etc

Um it really depends on what angle you believe, you have to go out and actually read what is said about chemtrails even if it sounds inane and daft. That is the only way you can argue against it, the part you have taken is only one piece and not the overall that these people predicate the government is partaking in.

 

[homeforsummer]

Hey if you want to take any of my individual, specific points to task then fire away. But not the scattergun, it's all balderdash that's becoming the theme here.

I don't need to - there are obvious examples of each, you're very much aware of them, and I don't intend to waste any more time on your dubious posting style.

Can I have some agreement that it is entirely possible that chemicals could be released from planes via a separate tank?

Theoretically? From the wings say, like a cropduster? Yes.

Realistically? No - for the myriad reasons mentioned so far. Even the layman going on holiday can see that a plane's wings or fuselage aren't littered with the necessary outlets for such a chemical. And again, you'd rely on ground staff across the world either being aware and somehow holding their tongue, or being unaware despite spending hours every day around the aircraft.

Military? Fractionally more plausible, but that would also rely on everyone involved with military aviation to see absolutely no issue with dropping random chemicals into the atmosphere, and then one of the millions of military personnel worldwide not leaking such information to credible sources.

As it is, the only sources of chemtrail "evidence" aren't credible. If they were, it would be much more than an underground conspiracy.

I believe that the environment is being negatively affected , deliberately or without concern for the consequences for humanity, by chemicals released into the atmosphere.

So after fervently denying you thought chemtrails existed, you now admit you think they exist?

Colour me shocked. Or possibly not.

 

[Enemem]

I don't need to - there are obvious examples of each, you're very much aware of them, and I don't intend to waste any more time on your dubious posting style.

Because you can't. That's the answer given by everyone who has answered that question in the thread. And can't very well defend myself against a blanket accusation. After all if I said that you were an idiot, then I'd expect you to ask for a specific example. It's not an unreasonable request.

Theoretically? From the wings say, like a cropduster? Yes.

Thanks.

Realistically? No - for the myriad reasons mentioned so far. Even the layman going on holiday can see that a plane's wings or fuselage aren't littered with the necessary outlets for such a chemical. And again, you'd rely on ground staff across the world either being aware and somehow holding their tongue, or being unaware despite spending hours every day around the aircraft.

Okay, at the start of the thread I may have argued with you, but it seems that the commercial aspect would be tricky to get away with, which is why I agreed with everyone.

Military? Fractionally more plausible, but that would also rely on everyone involved with military aviation to see absolutely no issue with dropping random chemicals into the atmosphere, and then one of the millions of military personnel worldwide not leaking such information to credible sources.

Hang on a minute. There are plenty of examples thhroughout history of military personel doing crappy things. http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/west/series1/porton-down.shtml for example

In return for payment and a precious pass for three days leave, soldiers from all over the country travelled to Porton Down to be involved in testing.

Many had no idea what was involved. Some soldiers were even told that they were taking part in research designed to find a cure for the common cold.

Their testing did not end there as Inside Out can reveal. Porton Down’s other batch of unwitting guinea pigs was the general public.

On February 1, 1961 a Land Rover set off at 10.45 am from the village of Ilchester. It was driven by scientists from Porton Down.

The Land Rover travelled through Wedmore and on to the outskirts of Bristol.

As it went, Zinc Cadmium Sulphide was sprayed into the air in an attempt to simulate germ warfare.

So your argument holds no weight.

As it is, the only sources of chemtrail "evidence" aren't credible. If they were, it would be much more than an underground conspiracy.

I refer my learned friend to the above link. Had I been telling people that maybe they were being poisoned then by the military - you would be using the same argument. You certainly haven't proved me wrong, because I would have been right. Unless of course this is in some way different (that's your loop-hole, going to use it?)

So after fervently denying you thought chemtrails existed, you now admit you think they exist?

I never said that they didn't exist. I said that I didn't know if they existed. I still don't. But I suspect that they do.

Um it really depends on what angle you believe, you have to go out and actually read what is said about chemtrails even if it sounds inane and daft. That is the only way you can argue against it, the part you have taken is only one piece and not the overall that these people predicate the government is partaking in.

First of all I object to the term "these people". Secondly I haven't said it's the government. And as you well know, there are plenty of people who do things illegally, that the government knows nothing about.

 

[homeforsummer]

Because you can't. That's the answer given by everyone who has answered that question in the thread. And can't very well defend myself against a blanket accusation. After all if I said that you were an idiot, then I'd expect you to ask for a specific example. It's not an unreasonable request.

No, but it's an unnecessary one.

Since you won't let it go otherwise:

You've been the one to start this thread on an open-ended, not-particularly-discursive premise

The very first post

accused the whole forum of being hostile

>

You lot are probably the most hostile,bad humoured people, I've ever come across.

Fairly self-evident, I think. Next one:

dodged perfectly reasonable responses in order to post things that have already been debunked

You can start with a lack of response to this post by @Scaff, but there have been several others throughout the thread.

implied that other members aren't reading what you're writing simply because they've had the gall to question your dubious conversational methods

Ta-daaaa. First line, second sentence. Or maybe your last response in this post, directed at @Azuremen.

perhaps least surprisingly, given the subject matter - neatly played the conspiratorial "everyone is against me" card.

Bawwwww.

You can add "wasting people's time on finding examples of things you said that were bloody obvious" to my previous list.

Hang on a minute. There are plenty of examples thhroughout history of military personel doing crappy things. http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/west/series1/porton-down.shtml for example
So your argument holds no weight.

I refer my learned friend to the above link. Had I been telling people that maybe they were being poisoned then by the military - you would be using the same argument. You certainly haven't proved me wrong, because I would have been right. Unless of course this is in some way different (that's your loop-hole, going to use it?)

Yes - you're relying on this being a worldwide conspiracy with not one person, of the millions who work in the military worldwide, coming forward.

It's also ignoring (again) my previous comments about data gathered by meteorologists. People dumping chemicals into the atmosphere is fairly easy to detect.

It's also ignoring (unsurprisingly) that your very example above is evidence of such a practice coming to light, exactly as I'm describing - rather than it remaining a conspiracy indefinitely, like chemtrails are apparently doing.

I never said that they didn't exist. I said that I didn't know if they existed. I still don't. But I suspect that they do.

​

 

[Enemem]

No, but it's an unnecessary one.

Since you won't let it go otherwise:

The very first post
>

Sorry but how should have have opened the thread. Surely that's my choice.

You can start with a lack of response to this post by @Scaff, but there have been several others throughout the thread.

Seriously if the CIA were to develop a chemical delivery system to kill us all why the hell would they bother to patent it?

So I've got an answer a question from Scaff with reference to a post by @djhashbrown.
I don't need to answer questions which concern information not posted by me.

So what you're saying is that chem-trails aren't real because I can't prove they are. That's okay because I can't prove they are. Not only that, I never said that they were real.

I don't see what's wrong with it. Maybe you don't understand what I've said. (And how do I get rid of this underscore)

Ta-daaaa

. First line, second sentence. Or maybe your last response in this post, [quote "Enemem"] What information, are you really not bothering to read my posts, who taught you to read. I haven't needed to prove anything, I haven't said anything. And give me ONE example of some information that I have failed to evaluate.

Well since you're trying to prove that I'm not answering questions, why do you point to my answers instead of pointing to a question I haven't responded to?[/quote]

Do you realise how difficult it is for me to a) figure out what you're referring to b) for anyone else to figure out.

You want to call me on anything then quote it. Otherwise the thread makes no sense.

Failing that my answer will be despatched in the same way. ie. I answered post 671 in post 874 and that was confirmed by post 902. Doesn't mean much does it, and not readable in the least. So much for you critiquing the results of my computer crash.

 

[homeforsummer]

Good grief. The very least you could do is organise your post into something readable. Perhaps if you're to accuse people of not understanding what you've written you should start by making your posts a bit clearer.

Starting the thread: We encourage discourse on this forum. Posting a video with a vague thread title and a smattering of words below isn't really the basis for intelligent discussion. It's roughly on par quality-wise with the first post in the Do you believe in God? thread, which at least made an attempt to hold some position on the matter which could then be expanded upon.

The post Scaff made: Since his answer was inherent to the subject matter of the thread, it's at least reasonable to assume you'd comment on it. Isn't provoking discussion why you started the thread, again?

Next point: I'm not surprised you don't see what's wrong with it, since you picked the wrong sentence. First line, second sentence. This one:

Are you actually reading what I'm writing, because you seem to find it impossible to give a specific example of the generalised statements you attribute to me.

To be fair, I counted "Really" as a sentence since you put a full-stop after it, but perhaps I shouldn't have been that generous. Anyway, I feel the above is a fairly clear indication of what I was describing.

Once again - nothing to do with other people misunderstanding; everything to do with you not making your posts very clear. And I see once again (once I'd deciphered the jumble of dross above) that you're back on the "people can't read" bandwagon. Quelle surprise.

Nice attempt to dodge the actual thread-related content I posted, too. It's obviously easier to post indignant responses towards people trying to illustrate the fallacies in your posting style.

It makes me wonder whether you plan to contribute anything noteworthy to this thread you apparently started to generate discussion with?

Have you, for instance, got any solid, interesting reading material on chemtrails? Links to any videos that don't look like they've been shot using a late-90s digital camera with Vaseline smeared over the lens? Anything on the subject that might have been written by people who don't look like this guy?:

If you do, it would add significantly to the value of the thread. As it is, there is one person posting that chemtrails "could be real" and a dozen posting why current evidence suggests that isn't the case. Majority opinion isn't always correct, but it generally is when the majority is the only group with actual evidence.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Theoretically? From the wings say, like a cropduster? Yes.

Realistically? No - for the myriad reasons mentioned so far. Even the layman going on holiday can see that a plane's wings or fuselage aren't littered with the necessary outlets for such a chemical. And again, you'd rely on ground staff across the world either being aware and somehow holding their tongue, or being unaware despite spending hours every day around the aircraft.

Most crop dusters have a separate mechanism that hangs below the plane's wings.

 

[Enemem]

Good grief. The very least you could do is organise your post into something readable. Perhaps if you're to accuse people of not understanding what you've written you should start by making your posts a bit clearer.

Computer crash. Nothing I could do until now. Just going to edit it now.

If you do, it would add significantly to the value of the thread. As it is, there is one person posting that chemtrails "could be real" and a dozen posting why current evidence suggests that isn't the case. Majority opinion isn't always correct, but it generally is when the majority is the only group with actual evidence.

Problem is you don't have any evidence either. How do you prove something isn't happening? The majority of people in here know that. But you're just distracting the thread.

I'll get to possible evidence in due time. Patience is it's own reward.

 

[BobK]

I'll get to possible evidence in due time. Patience is it's own reward.

So that would be a "no, I have no evidence after six days on the subject", correct?

Considering the mountains of evidence that have been presented as to why it's exceedingly unlikely, I'd have hoped you'd have something substantial to point to at this time. But that's okay, we'll wait a reasonable amount of time. And you will be getting reminders if you should happen to forget.

 

[Enemem]

It's also ignoring (again) my previous comments about data gathered by meteorologists. People dumping chemicals into the atmosphere is fairly easy to detect.

So if I find evidence from meteorologists and scientists that this is happening you'll be satisfied?

Anyway what's the hurry?

 

[Ryanswannell]

What I want to know is why people would want to do this. After all, the people supposedly planning this would be affecting themselves as well, wouldn't they?

For that reason alone, I'm throwing this rubbish into the bin containing the Illuminati, Area 51 and Alien interaction, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and lots of other nonsense.

 

[Famine]

Problem is you don't have any evidence either. How do you prove something isn't happening?

You have it arse-about-face. It's just Russell's Teapot all over again.

You cannot prove something doesn't exist. You can only prove it does, or fail to do so. It is not beholden upon anyone to prove chemtrails don't exist - it's the responsibility of those who assert that they do to prove that they do.

 

[Maccer_42]

I think that "chemtrails" from commercial passenger jet planes are just peoples misunderstanding of what contrails are and due to fear of the unknown they assume it's something bad.

With that said, a Google search of "military spraying chemicals over cities" brings up a few links to articles where in the 1950's and 60's the U.S. military did spray chemicals over cities and were designed to assess the threat of biological attacks by simulating the airborne dispersion of germs.

But this wasn't done from planes flying overhead.

The chemical they sprayed to simulate the attack was called zinc cadmium sulfide, now I don't know if this is potentially harmful or not and I won't make the claim either way that it is or isn't.

From what I gathered from the jist of this article skim reading it is that the amount of this chemical the U.S. military sprayed over cities wasn't of a high enough level to be harmful.
http://www.livescience.com/23795-large-area-coverage-dangers.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that "chemtrails" from commercial passenger jet planes are just peoples misunderstanding of what contrails are and due to fear of the unknown they assume it's something bad.

With that said, a Google search of "military spraying chemicals over cities" brings up a few links to articles where in the 1950's and 60's the U.S. military did spray chemicals over cities and were designed to assess the threat of biological attacks by simulating the airborne dispersion of germs.

But this wasn't done from planes flying overhead.

The chemical they sprayed to simulate the attack was called zinc cadmium sulfide, now I don't know if this is potentially harmful or not and I won't make the claim either way that it is or isn't.

From what I gathered from the jist of this article skim reading it is that the amount of this chemical the U.S. military sprayed over cities wasn't of a high enough level to be harmful.
http://www.livescience.com/23795-large-area-coverage-dangers.html

They also did this in the UK (but from Land Rovers, in the inimitably British way). There's a link somewhere in one of the previous posts to the BBC article about Porton Down.

The chemical itself wasn't believed to be poisonous but was felt to represent a good agent for testing dispersal. Some health concerns were noted later on by service personnel but from the single article it's hard to know if they were related.

 

[Enemem]

@Famine Reference your comments about having things arse about face. I understand what you are saying, it is me who needs to prove the existence of chem-trails. However, there are numerous people in this thread who seem to think that they have proved that chem-trails do not exist. And as you and I have already said you can't prove that something doesn't exist. They think they've proved the non-existence of chem-trails. You can't.

Now I could prove the existence of chem-trails if I find useful evidence, but can't prove the opposite. So stop saying you've proved that there are no chem-trails. It can't be done, and I'm not expecting any of you to try.

@Famine - have I made myself clear yet?

I also understand that evidence of chem-trails will not be visible i.e. just because the contrail stays in the air for 8 hours doesn't mean it's a chem-trail. It might be a chem-trail, but it's certainly not a proof.

 

[Blitz24]

@Famine Reference your comments about having things arse about face. I understand what you are saying, it is me who needs to prove the existence of chem-trails. However, there are numerous people in this thread who seem to think that they have proved that chem-trails do not exist. And as you and I have already said you can't prove that something doesn't exist. They think they've proved the non-existence of chem-trails. You can't.

Now I could prove the existence of chem-trails if I find useful evidence, but can't prove the opposite. So stop saying you've proved that there are no chem-trails. It can't be done, and I'm not expecting any of you to try.

@Famine - have I made myself clear yet?

You ask if they exist or can exist, information is given saying they don't exist and there has yet to be any proof negating what information has been given by everyone here.

 

[Azuremen]

Now I could prove the existence of chem-trails if I find useful evidence, but can't prove the opposite. So stop saying you've proved that there are no chem-trails. It can't be done, and I'm not expecting any of you to try.

So why do you keep posting this response, after days of this discussion?

You've also ignored the great deal of information that has been presented that suggests they don't exist, from zero evidence of such devices to tracking atmospheric chemical levels. You've been talking in circles (vague ones at that) some how claiming no-one here understands you can't prove they don't exist.

So, do you believe in God?

 

[Scaff]

Now I could prove the existence of chem-trails if I find useful evidence, but can't prove the opposite. So stop saying you've proved that there are no chem-trails. It can't be done, and I'm not expecting any of you to try.

And given the total and utter lack of evidence to support chem-trails a reasonable conclusion would be..............

 

[Enemem]

So why do you keep posting this response, after days of this discussion?

Famine brought it back up, so I responded AGAIN. It's as frustrating for me to keep writing it as it is for you to keep reading it.

You've also ignored the great deal of information that has been presented that suggests they don't exist, from zero evidence of such devices to tracking atmospheric chemical levels.

This is a military plane spraying mosquitoes.

And given the total and utter lack of evidence to support chem-trails a reasonable conclusion would be..............

That you haven't looked hard enough. And why would you? You don't believe they exist. Why look for something that you don't believe is there.

 

[Furinkazen]

Famine brought it back up, so I responded AGAIN. It's as frustrating for me to keep writing it as it is for you to keep reading it.



This is a military plane spraying mosquitoes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Chemtrail_c-130_spraying.jpg

It's from Wikipedia. That says all.

 

[Blitz24]

Is Wikipedia deemed a legitimate source?

 

[Furinkazen]

Is Wikipedia deemed a legitimate source?

Considering anyone can go and edit it, I think not.

 

[Azuremen]

Famine brought it back up, so I responded AGAIN. It's as frustrating for me to keep writing it as it is for you to keep reading it.

The difference has been we've actually provided some information while you've just repeated yourself over and over.

That you haven't looked hard enough. And why would you? You don't believe they exist. Why look for something that you don't believe is there.

Given you didn't know what crop-dusting was, fail to understand the various "theories" on chemtrails, and claimed to have no knowledge, I'd wager many of us have actually looked into it much further than you have, simply to see what backs these claims.

And it mostly consists of people taking pictures of contrails in grid patterns claiming "look, it is a grid/lines, looks weird, MUST BE SOMETHING EVIL." Of course, these people fail to take into account physics, let alone something even more intuitive like approach routes from landing strips requiring similar routes to be taken by flights, thus the "grid" pattern.

Finally, I am extremely curious how you feel about God, as it is extremely relevant to how you've approached this thread.

 

[Blitz24]

Considering anyone can go and edit it, I think not.

Well, you need an account, so the monkey creating the edit needs to do that first.

 

[Scaff]

That you haven't looked hard enough.

Those assumptions again, watch out they could get you into trouble.

And why would you? You don't believe they exist. Why look for something that you don't believe is there.

Do you know what one of my pet hates is? Its when people try and impose a position on me that I don't hold and/or try and imply I hold a position I don't. I particularly don't like it when I have already made my position clear directly to that person....

As for your assumptions about my position on what I KNOW, that's exactly what it is, an assumption.

I will remove that assumption for you, I have no belief in gods (to make that one rather clear - as off topic as it is). I have been presented with zero evidence of chem-trails or aliens, however if you (or anyone) are able to provide evidence that will meet the scientific standard then I would be more than happy to re-evaluate that position.

.......I've already stated that I am more than happy to look at any evidence anyone can provide, and I've looked at plenty when this has been discussed in the past, I've looked into evidence that others have provided on other forums, I've looked at the evidence you have provided. Not a single bit of it stands up to even the most basic examination.

I will however give you a good piece of advice, post in a manner than implies someone holds a position they don't and you will be taking a holiday from GT Planet, as to be blunt I've had enough of your nonsense.

 

[Exorcet]

That you haven't looked hard enough. And why would you? You don't believe they exist. Why look for something that you don't believe is there.

Looking for something that has no supporting evidence is pointless. You would never be able to stop looking because you would have infinite tests to go through. You would also have infinite questions to test.

Refuting something is different. There was already a thread on chemtrails and at least some of the members in this thread were in the last thread, which at least had some attempts at providing evidence if I remember. That evidence was looked at and responded to.

 

[Enemem]

Errrr. I know.

 

[Enemem]

Those assumptions again, watch out they could get you into trouble.



Do you know what one of my pet hates is? Its when people try and impose a position on me that I don't hold and/or try and imply I hold a position I don't. I particularly don't like it when I have already made my position clear directly to that person....



.......I've already stated that I am more than happy to look at any evidence anyone can provide, and I've looked at plenty when this has been discussed in the past, I've looked into evidence that others have provided on other forums, I've looked at the evidence you have provided. Not a single bit of it stands up to even the most basic examination.

I will however give you a good piece of advice, post in a manner than implies someone holds a position they don't and you will be taking a holiday from GT Planet, as to be blunt I've had enough of your nonsense.

If I'd have said that they didn't exist, then that would have been an assumption also.

I'm a bit confused. If I came into a room and showed you a video, and asked if it was chem-trails then would you have said. You can't come in here and say that you need to have a properly formulated argument before you can show us that video, so you can back it up.

Now can someone quote me where i said chem-trails were real ?

 

[Blitz24]

You post in the first post (which was probably edited) asking if it's real. Someone replies "No". You ask them for proof, they give proof. Question is either answered or you aren't properly asking the question.