Chemtrails in Switzerland

[frenat]

Cloud seeding is not nonsense at all.

Nor does it have anything to do with mythical "chemtrails".

[+OverSword]

Nor does it have anything to do with mythical "chemtrails".

Go look at the post I was responding to and the one that post was responding to.

[+OverSword]

To think that WWII fighters did "something different" by spraying chemicals as they crossed the channel while escorting bombers is, perhaps, the most ridiculous chemtrail statement ever made and now you know why your brethren avoided making your mistake by pretending the question was never asked. See, the secret is there is no good answer because any answer other than contrails exist is wrong

Oh my god, where did I ever say that WWII fighters were spraying chemtrails????? For that matter where did I say chemtrails are more than a CT? There are some crazy people on this thread but I aint one of them. I think your problem is you miss yamato so your searching for someone to mindlessly do the he said she said sidetrack thing.

[ChrLzs]

Wow, talk about a complete A hole.

I knew you'd be first with the masked but direct personal attack. You're predictable...

I wonder what you're like in real life. I especially like the part where you went through it very slowly with small words. Thanks for all your help Sheldon.

Do you have a hatred for people who know what they are talking about? I note you only managed to actually address one point in my post and it wasn't really about contrails at all, just your choice of thread title...

And that refusal to actually address the topic is EXACTLY what you did back here, when you ran away, wisely, from addressing a single thing in the lessons about contrails. You haven't learnt a single thing.

And why did YOU name this thread "Chemtrails in Switzerland - They're killing us with chemicals"

If you had bothered to read the linked article you would know that is the title.

I did read the article. But I have a mind that is capable of thinking about how I word my thread titles and content. I don't just parrot the article, I would use words like this:

"Article claims..."

I know such concepts are very, very difficult to grasp, but go on, give it a try. If you don't, then people might think you are, indeed, just a parrot. Given that you refuse to address the basics of contrail formation, given that you refuse to offer a single shred of proof, even when the method of providing that proof is slapped in your face and shown to be quite easy, then I think the word parrot is quite kind...

Do me a favor and stay off my posts in the future as lifes too short to waste on the like of you.

It's a public forum. When you get elected as a moderator I'll listen, but until then - if you post ridiculous stuff, you'll be called on it - that's how I roll...

Edited September 18, 2014 by ChrLzs

[+OverSword]

I knew you'd be first with the masked but direct personal attack. You're predictable...

Do you have a hatred for people who know what they are talking about? I note you only managed to actually address one point in my post and it wasn't really about contrails at all, just your choice of thread title...

And that refusal to actually address the topic is EXACTLY what you did back here, when you ran away, wisely, from addressing a single thing in the lessons about contrails. You haven't learnt a single thing.

I did read the article. But I have a mind that is capable of thinking about how I word my thread titles and content. I don't just parrot the article, I would use words like this:

"Article claims..."

I know such concepts are very, very difficult to grasp, but go on, give it a try. If you don't, then people might think you are, indeed, just a parrot. Given that you refuse to address the basics of contrail formation, given that you refuse to offer a single shred of proof, even when the method of providing that proof is slapped in your face and shown to be quite easy, then I think the word parrot is quite kind...

It's a public forum. When you get elected as a moderator I'll listen, but until then - if you post ridiculous stuff, you'll be called on it - that's how I roll...

OK, then please post on all of my threads.

I'm not going to bother to address any of your other demands simply because if you go through and read what I've posted here you will see that at no point do I say chemtrails are an actual phenomena. The closest I ever get to making that statement is saying they are more likely to be real than ET's visiting the earth. Now p*** off.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Oversword I think that it would be a good idea if you dialed the hostility down a bit. You can't expect to be taken seriously if you call people a** holes and tell them to p*** off.

Anyway why did you start a thread about a chemtrail story, if you claim to not believe in it ?

[+OverSword]

Oversword I think that it would be a good idea if you dialed the hostility down a bit. You can't expect to be taken seriously if you call people a** holes and tell them to p*** off.

Anyway why did you start a thread about a chemtrail story, if you claim to not believe in it ?

I started the thread because I thought some would find it interesting or at least stimulating, 2 days and 6 pages later I feel that was somewhat true.

I'm calling that jerk and A-hole because he is. Talk about a condescending twit. for some reason he decided to nitpick points I never made, I mean was I supposed to list all of the many and various possible reasons that there were no chemtrails being used as a means of warfare in WWII? Or when asked if I was aware of the basic mechanics behind the formation of contrails was I expected to give a thorough description of the process? I simply said yes, and he decided he could describe it to me slowly and in very small words. How was that justified? He deserved the response he received in my opinion.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Just a bit of advice to everybody, sometimes it is better to not respond in kind, even if you feel unfairly treated.

Once both sides starts to use condescending words it rarely ends well.

[+OverSword]

Just a bit of advice to everybody, sometimes it is better to not respond in kind, even if you feel unfairly treated.

Once both sides starts to use condescending words it rarely ends well.

Thanks Noteverything, and yes I know. I've got a few posts under my belt and one or two likes as well but I'm not going to put up with that level of mud without some push back too often.

[Merc14]

Oh my god, where did I ever say that WWII fighters were spraying chemtrails????? For that matter where did I say chemtrails are more than a CT? There are some crazy people on this thread but I aint one of them. I think your problem is you miss yamato so your searching for someone to mindlessly do the he said she said sidetrack thing.

Actually I quoted you and responded in kind and yamato is so far gone on whatever he is taking that I ignore him. I am sure he once had a keen mind but that is no longer the case. That you take umbrage about being skewered is a you thing bud and has nothing to do with me.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Merc14

[mrbusdriver]

I started the thread because I thought some would find it interesting or at least stimulating, 2 days and 6 pages later I feel that was somewhat true.

I'm calling that jerk and A-hole because he is. Talk about a condescending twit. for some reason he decided to nitpick points I never made, I mean was I supposed to list all of the many and various possible reasons that there were no chemtrails being used as a means of warfare in WWII? Or when asked if I was aware of the basic mechanics behind the formation of contrails was I expected to give a thorough description of the process? I simply said yes, and he decided he could describe it to me slowly and in very small words. How was that justified? He deserved the response he received in my opinion.

So, persistent contrails are a fact. How do we differentiate persistent contrails from chemtrails...just by visual observation?

[DONTEATUS]

My opinion is All Contrails are never CHemtrails, And All Chemtrails are just peoples bent imaginations !

[Jacques Terreur]

My opinion is All Contrails are never CHemtrails, And All Chemtrails are just peoples bent imaginations !

....and i dedicate my 1000. post to virtually pat you on the shoulder and say: "you got it, mate!"

[Golden Duck]

Water is a chemical

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Water is a chemical

That is technically true.

That means that chemtrails are water, which can only mean that "they" are trying to drown us (very slowly) !!!!!!

[ChrLzs]

So, let's summarise... In the OP, Oversword posted this thread with the title "Chemtrails in Switzerland - They're killing us with chemicals". He linked to a personal website article with a title he re-worded to suit his opinion (I guess..) and then posted:

Great pictures that some here will no doubt blow off..

This seems to suggest that he supports the article, and is denigrating those (like me) who would 'blow it off'.

He then says:

Please note the final picture is a chemical analysis.

Observant readers may notice that he simply accepts the analysis as valid, and doesn't mention it is apparently a ground level sample off a Jacuzzi cover.....

Those same readers may also note that he doesn't make it clear that his thread title isn't his opinion, despite arguing that point later on. And if you read on, you will see that it definitely does seem to have been his opinion, at least back in 2012..

Because, as I mentioned above, in 2012 Oversword posted in a similar fashion here, where he said and I quote:

Nothing but claptrap despite the patents taken out for the process, the footage of jets spraying them, and my own eyes wittnesing {sic} them criscrossing the sky? I grew up in what used to be known as Jet city, I know what a contrail looks like and how long they last before dissapating {sic}(10-15 minutes). Chemtrails definetly {sic} exist. Exactly what they are composed of or what they are for is the question.

So Oversword believes:

- he can spot the difference between a genuine contrail and a 'chem'trail, but is strangely quiet when asked what those differences are...

- that crisscrossing means 'chem'trails - yet when it was explained to him that of course filghtpaths cross, and with upper level winds displacing the trails you *must* get 'criss-crossing' he again went strangely silent...

- that contrails always last 10-15 minutes and that anything that doesn't is a 'chem'trail... this is so utterly and ludicrously wrong, I truly hope it was a troll - even tho that is clearly against forum rules...

- that 'chem'trails 'definetly' exist... in my next post I shall repeat the contrail lessons and hopefully Oversword will carefully (and perhaps even politely) dispute all of the facts I will present, and explain on what basis he still believes in 'chem'trails..

The last time I posted the facts about contrails here, in response to his claims quoted above, Oversword vanished from the thread and did not respond in any way whatsoever to defend his views. I wonder if history will repeat... Stay tuned - I'll be back later to repost the contrail lessons, condensed down to a post that hopefully won't be too difficult for anyone to understand. After all, even though some here seem to have difficulty learning, others may read this thread and take away some knowledge...

[ChrLzs]

All about CONtrails... point by point:

1. Clouds are formed from water vapour. In the case of Cirrus clouds @ 20,000+ feet the water 'vapour' is in the form of tiny ice crystals.

2. Depending on atmospheric conditions (re saturation point / dewpoint), clouds (including cirrus) may form, or not. Again, depending on changing conditions, they may then grow, or stay the same, or dissipate. Needless to say, there is no set time for dissipation of clouds...

3. Jet engines create (a lot of) water as a product of combustion of the jet fuel (chemical equations available on request).

4. As the exhaust leaves the jet engine, it contains the air and water vapour that already existed in the ambient conditions PLUS the water vapour created by the combustion process. That mixture, which was heavily compressed in the engine, expands rapidly as it leaves the aircraft and that drops the temperature down to below ambient in the low pressure region behind the aircraft.

5. As that air now contains much more water vapour than it did (and it is colder and low pressure), the saturation levels are much higher so if conditions are right (and they often are) the water vapour will condense into tiny ice crystals - man-made cirrus clouds... condensation trails... CONtrails.

Now, please refer back to point 2 - the rate at which these artificially created clouds will grow or dissipate is entirely dependent on the ambient temp, pressure and saturation levels. Suggesting there is some magic time limit is just ridiculous - do clouds have time limits?

And as for the logistics of deliberately spraying chemicals at 20,000 + feet, it is a blindingly stupid idea - quite apart from anything else, high level winds will guarantee that anything sprayed up there will land hundreds if not thousands of kilometres away.

Seriously, the idea of covertly spraying chemicals at high altitudes is prettty much the dumbest conspiracy claim EVER. But some people will go for it...

And it is rather notable that not ONE 'chemtrail' believer has EVER been able to document a trail that was not attributable to the *inevitable* process of ice crystal condensation at high altitudes. It is easy (especially in the USA, where almost all of these claims come from) to get hold of atmospheric conditions at all altitudes from various sources (eg UWYO's Upper Air Soundings). Then you can use any of the flight tracking systems (eg FlightAware) to identify the flight you are watching to find out at what altitude it is..

NOT ONE 'chemtrail' claimant has ever been able to use that sort of simple methodology to point to an aircraft that was leaving trails when it shouldn't have been.

That's because the trails are CONtrails - condensation trails. There's no conspiracy, never was. Yes, some low level spraying goes on, for cropdusting and insect control, and then very occasionally they do cloud seeding, but as far as some sort of secret high altitude spraying - the idea is completely daft. If 'they' wanted to poison you with chemicals, there are many much more efficient ways that would allow proper targeting..

Edited September 19, 2014 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

Now, back to you, Oversword.

Which parts of what I posted above do you dispute?

How do you tell what is a chemtrail, versus a contrail?

Can you show me an example of a chemtrail, with your full reasoning and proper evidence?

I'll be delighted to debate the topic in great detail, and I have much in the way of references and cites, if any point is in dispute... I'll even go step by step thru the process of finding out what the high level weather conditions are (in the USA it's easy), and how to go about identifying a flight and its height, if anyone doesn't know how to do it...

Isn't learning stuff just wonderful!!??

[turbonium]

This video shows the 'contrails' claim is total bs...

[Czero 101]

And a quick Google search turns up many links showing her claims to be total bs... including this one to a message board where she (or someone using her name as a user name) participated in the firs few pages, summarily had her hind quarters handed to her, and then disappeared.

Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

And this one where her claims are also, not surprisingly, shown to be crap...

Ex-Military Kristen Meghan - Chemtrails.

And there's this FB page...

Chemtrails are NOT real, idiots are...

I'm sure there's stuff about her there, too, but I just thought it was a graet name for a FB page, and very relevant considering this topic and who's post is above this one..

Cz

Edited September 20, 2014 by Czero 101

[+DieChecker]

And a quick Google search turns up many links showing her claims to be total bs... including this one to a message board where she (or someone using her name as a user name) participated in the firs few pages, summarily had her hind quarters handed to her, and then disappeared.

Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

And this one where her claims are also, not surprisingly, shown to be crap...

Ex-Military Kristen Meghan - Chemtrails.

And there's this FB page...

Chemtrails are NOT real, idiots are...

I'm sure there's stuff about her there, too, but I just thought it was a graet name for a FB page, and very relevant considering this topic and who's post is above this one..

Cz

I can tell you as an Air Force Sergeant she was more likely making coffee for a Lieutenant then conducting experiments or doing studies or being in charge of anything at all. She likely was a glorified secretary to a Captain given her very specific job description.

[Jacques Terreur]

seriously, i am a bit surprised that some people are backing up chemtrails so much.

If there was a military (government, illuminati, alien, whatever....) plot to chemically alter or poison people in whatever way,

wouldn't the "spraying it from airplaines"-scheme be a little too time-consuming and costly in the first place?

You'd have to have access to a plane, re-outfit it with the "spraying technology", get it up there regularly,somehow be a "master of the winds", to know exactly where your precious chemicals will come down after you release them.....

When, let's say, a guy with a syringe, infiltrating a water supply, would be much more effective and cheaper?

Edited September 20, 2014 by Jacques Terreur

[turbonium]

It's just the typical mud-slinging from government toadies.

It is not based on evidence.

Same old personal attacks.

Anyone who disagrees with the official story is 'full of s&**'. They are called conspiracy nuts, liars, etc.

What a farce.

[Space Commander Travis]

hey, turbo. So you're an adherent to the Chemtrail theory then? Who'd have thought it.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Valdemar the Great

[turbonium]

seriously, i am a bit surprised that some people are backing up chemtrails so much.

If there was a military (government, illuminati, alien, whatever....) plot to chemically alter or poison people in whatever way,

wouldn't the "spraying it from airplaines"-scheme be a little too time-consuming and costly in the first place?

You'd have to have access to a plane, re-outfit it with the "spraying technology", get it up there regularly,somehow be a "master of the winds", to know exactly where your precious chemicals will come down after you release them.....

When, let's say, a guy with a syringe, infiltrating a water supply, would be much more effective and cheaper?

Why would a nutcase stab a guy 100 times with a little pocketknife, if he was packing a loaded .38? It makes no sense, if he was trying to kill someone.

Who cares why the nutcase used a little knife.... it isn't sane to begin with.

It is not sane to poison us, with chemtrails. They do it, that's all that matters here.