Chemtrails, Seeing is believing.

by pedal power 482 Replies latest social current

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    There you go folks. No good answer for chemtrails so let's change the subject to Coke. Jesus F****** Christ.

    I didn't change the subject to Coca Cola. Bohm did.

    Bullshit! You prove that they can be made to pass through combustion! You're the one that has to prove this shit is true, not any of us.

    I never stated as fact that this is how they do it, it's only what I suspect and I offered it as a possibility. Jet engines are 20 and 40 percent efficient. If the statement is being made that it is impossible to engineer additives to be delivered after combustion then it should be proven or don't make the statement.

  • sooner7nc
    sooner7nc

    Again: Bullshit! You prove that they can be made to pass through combustion! You're the one that has to prove this shit is true, not any of us.

    Partner, this is all on you. You have to prove it. I don't have to prove anything because I'm not the one claiming that this highly unlikely occurence is indeed happening, therefore you are the one that has to prove it. You also have to give a reasonable and accurate reason why this is happening.

    The ball's in your court now.

  • bohm
    bohm

    pson: I didn't change the subject to Coca Cola. Bohm did.

    No i did not. I wrote:

    why not just go all the way and claim cola contain chemicals designed to kill people? both things can be bought in a store.

    I choose coca-cola because certainly only a total retard, an olympic-class interlectual underperformer, a coke-snorting acid-hitting valium-drinking YOKE would suggest something as stupid as the "government" putting things in cola designed to kill people

    Ofcourse you thought that was a valid path to go down to distort the conversation, so you rose to the challenge:

    pson: Coca Cola will dissolve a T-Bone steak in 24 hours and will remove the paint from your car. Keep it in your mouth long enough and your teeth will be gone. Then you can live on scrambled eggs. That's why I stopped drinking it years ago. Very good example, by the way.

    lol :-D.

    To be fair, i dont think you really believe the stuff about coca-cola. i think your just trying to derail the conversation because you want to avoid the many things which has been posted here and which invalidate your claims.

    we all know you are trying to paddle away from the science on this topic because you got no answers and are aware of the fact. But stop trying to excuse your shallow attempts by claiming it is US who are trying to distort the subject.

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    I'll say it one more time and then I have to get a move on.

    I have posted government admission of chemtrails. Neither you nor anyone else have responded to that with anything other than some nonsense about "motherships". But aside from that.....

    I think Mrs. Jones trumps your "science" bohm. If chemtrails don't exist, then California's atmosphere is different from the rest of the country. How about a scientific explanation for that one?

  • eva luna
    eva luna

    Native California CRICKET here...

    I have been seeing these 'chemtrails' for over 10 years.

    I live close to 3 magor international airports, 1 inter-continentall and 3 mini airports [that I can think of] and 1 Military.

  • bohm
    bohm

    I think Mrs. Jones trumps your "science" bohm. If chemtrails don't exist, then California's atmosphere is different from the rest of the country. How about a scientific explanation for that one?

    oh holy cow, amazing fail incoming.

    From a scientific paper written by people who are not content with sitting on their flat ass making unsubstantiated claims: (http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Palikonda.abs.col.ARAMS.02.pdf)

    Two conditions are necessary for contrail formation:

    air traffic and suitable conditions. Duda et al. (2002)

    derived the distribution of potential contrail frequency

    from numerical weather prediction (NWP) reanalyses for

    the period 5 - 30 September 2001. Their results, shown

    in Fig. 4, are similar in many respects to the September

    contrail coverage in Fig. 1. For example, the model
    results suggest a minimum in contrails for a roughly

    triangular area extending from the Pacific off southern California to eastern Montana and to the central Gulf of Mexico.

    so yah, there is a scientific explanation. and its really hard: the weather is different in california than in certain other parts of america.Who would have imagined... Or from a Nature paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6670/full/391837a0.html Several recent field programmes have tried to assess the atmospheric impact of air- craft exhaust3–6. Results of NASA’s SUCCESS project (“Subsonic aircraft: Contrail and cloud effects sp ecial study”), conducted in April–May 1996, will appear in several forthcoming issues of Geophysical Research Letters 6. Satellite observations of contrails during SUCCESS show that persistent con- trails can indeed evolve into extensive cirrus clouds that otherwise would not have formed7. This means that a considerable amount of ice-supersaturated air exists in the upper troposphere that is capable of pro- ducing cloud in the presence of nucleating aerosols. How often contrails spawn extensive cirrus clouds, and how large and long-lived those clouds are, are still open questions.
  • bohm
    bohm

    eva luna: How do you know what you are seing is not ordinary contrails but must be chemtrails?

  • keyser soze
    keyser soze

    You should see the chemtrails in my bathroom after that chalupa I had for lunch.

  • eva luna
    eva luna

    bohm

    I have read up on this subject for years. I do have an opionion, and you wont agree with it.

    But I'm not going to get into any arguement over it. Notice my use of quotes. Maybe my palotas are not so big...;-)

    A part of me belives man is good, and something like this would never happen AGAIN.

    Peace out,

    from a California born and raised Cricket

  • bohm
    bohm

    I have read up on this subject for years. I do have an opionion, and you wont agree with it.

    But I'm not going get into any arguement over it.

    well, i think i can draw one of two conclusions:

    • you have an oppinion, but it is not supported by evidence, so you know it would not convince anyone.
    • you have an oppinion, it is supported by evidence, but you know me so well you know i will draw the wrong conclusion.

    well, thanks for sharing anyway...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit