|
Author
|
|
Topic: The big chemtrail evidences thread | Topic page views:
|
|
NW41Heavy
Negro with an Attitude
Tallahassee, FL
88 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 04-22-2003 09:31 PM
  
Actually, it's generally the opposite of what yall say when trying to put down someone that is a BS-er. People wanting to put some weight into their argument pro BS-er are the people that say that and incorrectly. If you're trying to discredit someone, you have to take an interest in it and delve deeper. Know thy enemy. ------------------
Dude, that guy has a black belt in redneck!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by NW41Heavy on 04-22-2003] 
|
PHXPilot
Your Mode C Veil is Showing
Phoenix, AZ, USA
800 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 04-22-2003 10:27 PM
On a completely unrealted note, I was browsing around some other chemtrail websites and came across a guy that has been using a spotlight to illuminate aircraft as they fly over his house at night.He is obviously crazy, he keeps calling these small aircraft "Kites", and he doesnt seem to understand the functions of the position lights on an aircraft. This is a quote of his when he was talking about his nightly aircraft illuminations. The Kites are, as I said, still quite prevailant, but now there are little "spotters" that are probably cesnas with the same red-white-blue light pattern as the kites. We TOTALLY NAILED one last night. I mean LIT IT UP!!! As in the spotlight's on you, buddy! AND EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU!! Ignoring his obvious aviation stupidity, this is a main reason I want to get rid of this crap theory as soon as possible. Some chemmies are a serious threat to aviation safety. I mean, a 2,000,000 candle power spotlight being pointed at GA aircraft at night?!?! And I have seen some posts on this site from chemmies encouraging others to blind pilots by shining lights, or reflecting the sun into the pilots eyes. I also saw an NTSB report that told of an airliner on approach to an airport when a beam of light entered the cockpit, followed the cockpit and was intense enough to injure the pilots eyes. Im just afraid that one of these days, one of your guys' antics is going to cause a major problem. I just pray no one gets that fanatic.
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 04-22-2003 10:37 PM
>>And I have seen some posts on this site from chemmies encouraging others to blind pilots by shining lights, or reflecting the sun into the pilots eyes.<,Encouraging anyone to shine lights in pilots eyes is really stupid!! >>On a completely unrealted note,<, Yes very unrelated to chemtrail EVIDENCE PHXPilot...would it be possible to keep this thread on track, and if no possible evidence to add, then blow your hot air somewhere else?  Lulu, the ticket agent (extrodinaire)
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 04-22-2003 10:42 PM
Putting Al Cuppett's letter aside, a recap of ICU's last statements... quote:
It is clear that the following statements as presented to the evidence thread are recognized as factual:The ability to apply large amounts of material to the atmosphere with limited resources has been presented. The ability to create "large persistent contrails" (chemtrails) using a small amount of material over a large area has been presented. Opening the floor to information on KC-135 "cargo carrying" capabilities.
Does MASS fit through the cargo doors of the KC-135? Opening the floor to any research performed in fuel additives to JP-8 or other fuels used by aircraft responsible for 'unusual persistent contrails'.
Can nonoscale aluminum powder be suspended in jet fuel and enhanced through the thermodynamic process of the jet/turbine engine?
I just want to thank you again ICU, for your clear and concise evidence, and your logical presentation of it.
|
PHXPilot
Your Mode C Veil is Showing
Phoenix, AZ, USA
800 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 04-22-2003 10:50 PM
The ability to apply large amounts of material to the atmosphere with limited resources has been presented.The ability to create "large persistent contrails" (chemtrails) using a small amount of material over a large area has been presented. I still havent seen anything that indicates this. You can't toss out a gallon per 12 seconds and get what you see outside. What you see is a many gallon per second job. This is what you guys see:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/332946/L/ Now, just try and wrap your mind around the amount of raw chemicals you would have to release to create this effect. A gallon per 12 seconds will not even be visible.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHXPilot on 04-22-2003]
|
HatchetML
Trolling for Trolls
NW Florida
174 posts, Apr 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 06:25 AM
OK so everything possibly coming out of a plane is equal to the composition of jet fuel according to PHX, So guys change the rule book cause PHX said so!Everything coming out a plane is to be judged on how jet fuel performs in aircraft and is equal to or less then! HOW ABSURD one word PHX that you fail to account for is Nanotechnology, so phx if this stuff was comprised of extremly small particles then logic assumes the inevitable. Get your head out your ass for a moment and realize that your talking about something that you know not one thing about, just because jet fuel takes this much to produce said effect you assume all other materials emitting from a plane will have the same effect, WHAT IF THE COMPOSITION OF SAID MATERIAL WAS DRY MATERIAL then that hole statement of yours becomes MUTE its not possible goes out the window, and once again you pilots talk about ppl being narrow minded yet your showing us just how narrow minded you really are!
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lulu:
Must be something to it Captain--sure irked your chain!
You are correct Lulu, there is something to it. A COMPLETE LUNATIC! When driving in your car do you think twice about somebody who inadvertantly encroaches on your lane, swerves back and waves "sorry"? How about when somebody swerves in and out of traffic for miles, cutting people off, flipping the finger to everybody? That gets you going. THAT'S who Al Cuppett is. He persists in spewing bullshit even though NONE of his predictions/observations have been able to be verified by ANYBODY but him!
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by the professor:
Captain, might I add you sure know alot about this guy for being a so called fake. I'm listening how you know what his real ranking is, and frankly when someone usually finds someone else a bullshitter why would one want to divulge deeper into this persons affairs. And who's phantom?
Nothing that a 10 minute web search wouldn't produce. Professor, think of this as a court case. Lulu presented a piece of "evidence". I then discredited the evidence showing the source as more than questionable. I think you meant to say 'delve' into this persons affairs, but like I said, that takes all of 10 minutes. The problem I have with what Lulu did (and it's not personal) is that when somebody respected (Lulu) posts a letter like that, everybody here takes it at face value without even questioning the source. I'm fairly certain Lulu knew who Al Cuppett was and didn't 'divulge' any info on him because she knew it would blow that letter out of the water. Phantom is a poster on another board that Lulu knows who likes to post pictures and info out of context without providing sources. That why the reference to him.
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:24 AM
The ability to create "large persistent contrails" (chemtrails) using a small amount of material over a large area has been presented.Presented, yes. Fact/evidence/proof, NO! ICU didn't show that the particles he said could be suspended at very low rates would even make a visible cloud at all! The whole crux of his arguement was that these particle were INCREDIBLY small and released at VERY low rates. For them to immediate bond to water particles enough to quadruple their mass within a couple feet of being released and forming huge trails seems impossible! NOT proof at all, but at least ICU is presenting some scientific evidence to support his case. Something that is not seen enough of round here.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by CaptWalker on 04-23-2003]
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:25 AM
>>Phantom is a poster on another board that Lulu knows who likes to post pictures and info out of context without providing sources. That why the reference to him.<<Captain, I did provide a link! >>I then discredited the evidence showing the source as more than questionable.<< Really? Bhwwwwhhhahhhahahhwahaaa too funny. Good point(s) Hatchet.
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:36 AM
Captain, I did provide a link!You did not provide any background on Cuppett, your link was to just to a copy of the letter and THAT'S exactly why I have the problem. Many CT believers accuse 'debunkers' of not thinking for themselves, but it's been my experience that the cut and paste artists mostly reside in the CT camp. All of the articles, pictures, letters... can all be traced back to a couple sources (Carni, Rense, Larry...) and are taken at face value because somebody links to somebody who linked to them. Nobody here would have questioned AC if it weren't for 'debunkers' like me and his letter would be passed off as "evidence" over and over. THAT'S why I get so riled up over it. I would like to see the cut and paste of lunatics stopped! Lulu, I certainly hope you're not going to try to prop up AC. If you think he is a credible source, more power to you, but that would cast huge doubts on your validity as a rational thinker IMO (like anybody here cares).
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:44 AM
>>and are taken at face value because somebody links to somebody who linked to them.<<I stated the letter was possible evidence Captain. >>I would like to see the cut and paste of lunatics stopped!<< This is your main concern? Are you calling me a cut n' paste? The letter was an image not an article. People can take the letter for what they feel it's worth. I'm not propping anyone up here.
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 08:57 AM
I stated the letter was possible evidence Captain.... The letter was an image not an article.... People can take the letter for what they feel it's worth. I'm not propping anyone up here.Semantics Lulu. I can convert an article to a jpg file and then post it as an image, it's still written text! You weren't posting it for visual asthetics. You only called it "possible" after I called you out on the source. You were obviously hoping nobody would question it and would take is as 'evidence'. AGAIN, what got me going is that you posted an image/article/letter with NO backgroud on the author, NO link to anything other than the document itself, NO explaination of anything! As for propping anybody up, you are by laughing at the notion that AC is NOT a credible sourse. You are propping up a man who seems to have served his country well, but has since lost his mental faculties. He is on record stating things from years ago that have not come to fruition or can be proved by anybody in the world. He has made accusations that haven't been brought up by anybody else (even those who would have been directly effected, like hey, my cousin/neighbor and his whole family have disappeared, oh well). It's not because he's brave and the only one who will speak out, it's because he's mad (the insane type) and none of these things have happened.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by CaptWalker on 04-23-2003]
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 04-23-2003 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Lulu ~ quote:
The letter itself is explanation enough IMO, and possible evidence of chemtrail spraying. Do you have any evidence Captain, or are you just blowing hot air?
>>You were obviously hoping nobody would question it and would take is as 'evidence'.<< Ha, why ass-u-me Captain? Possible evidence is presented in this thread, and I hope that everyone questions the "evidence"...that is my hope Captain. My credo is question all supposed truths and hope others do as well. >>NO explaination of anything!<< When are you debunkers going to learn how to spell properly? Poor spelling indicates poor credibility and low IQ IMO...explanation enough?
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 10:06 AM
Pull a spelling card? WOW, I really was wrong about you Lulu. I thought you were different then the others here. That's why I was so disappointed in you posting that letter. I expected much better from you.As far as you intended to have other question the letter, I don't buy it. But you're right in that it is only my opinion. I don't know your intent, but to post an official looking letter from somebody who sounds like they have good credentials and talks a mean game, with no background as to who they really are... I would think you could understand why I would come to that conclusion. BTW, I generally score between 135 and 139 on IQ tests. Not the highest, but certainly well above average, and last time I looked there were no spelling questions on any of the tests. Comprehension is much more important, but not around here... it seems semantics plays a more important role in trying to refute the 'debunkers'.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by CaptWalker on 04-23-2003]
|
ICU812
Senior Member
Edmonton, Canada
100 posts, Mar 2001
|
posted 04-23-2003 02:34 PM
Thank you Lulu for attempting to keep the evidence thread on track.Aye Captain, can't wait untill we get into EM scalar, SF6 and other current atmospheric programs, thanks. Weather mod. technology is only a part of this. As time allows all additional scientific data about the probable causes of 'unusual persistent contrails' will be presented. As information is presented, some individuals will commit the time to review and understand it. Others will continue an attempt to derail the facts. All potential information must be presented to the public forum for review, so we can make an informed decision. Opening the floor to information on KC-135 "cargo carrying" capabilities.
Does MASS fit through the cargo doors of the KC-135? PHX, this is your area of expertise, what do you think? Opening the floor to any research performed in fuel additives to JP-8 or other fuels used by aircraft responsible for 'unusual persistent contrails'.
Can nonoscale aluminum powder be suspended in jet fuel and enhanced through the thermodynamic process of the jet/turbine engine?
|
the professor
KNOW YOUR ROLE
heartland USA
1164 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 10:41 PM
Cap don't be hypocritical here, the spelling card being pulled? you pulled one on me.... I'm a horrible speller if you haven't noticed already.
|
CaptWalker
logic infuser
99 posts, Feb 2003
|
posted 04-24-2003 08:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by the professor:
Cap don't be hypocritical here, the spelling card being pulled? you pulled one on me.... I'm a horrible speller if you haven't noticed already.
professor, not calling you a liar, but I don't recall ever pulling a spelling card on you or anyone else, perhaps you are thinking of somebody else. It is one of my pet peeves on message boards and I wouldn't do it. I'm guilty of typing too fast and not proofing my posts just like everybody. The spelling card IMO is the white flag of discussions.
|
ICU812
Senior Member
Edmonton, Canada
100 posts, Mar 2001
|
posted 05-15-2003 12:16 AM
Internet search for key words "atmosphere aluminum".
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~gatesa/aerosols/introduction.html Research is rocket related however the scientists names are familiar. Ross et al, 1997a; Ross et al, 1997b; Denison et al, 1994; Jackman, 1994 """Although number of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particles emitted is relatively small, the introduction of new particles into the troposphere or stratosphere may have a significant impact on ambient atmospheric conditions. The aluminum oxide aerosol can impact the atmosphere in several different ways. Previous studies have shown that a significant amount of ozone loss can occur in the exhaust plume of an SRM [Ross et al, 1997a; Ross et al, 1997b; Denison et al, 1994; Jackman, 1994]. It has been determined that this loss is due to an increase in the amount of active chlorine in the plume [Brady et al, 1997; Denison et al, 1994]. While the majority of the active chlorine is a result of the afterburning of HCl in the hot plume [Denison et al, 1994], there is some speculation that heterogeneous reactions on the aluminum oxide aerosol surface may contribute to the amount of available active chlorine [Molina et al, 1997].
There are also indications that the aluminum oxide aerosol may affect the atmosphere in a more direct way through it's optical properties. The increase in ambient aerosol loading may impact cloud formation and radiative properties, as well as the radiative properties of the ambient atmosphere. This could have an impact on global warming and cooling."""" WHATS THE TANKER FLEET LOOKING LIKE. Boeing's website search feature on keywords: "KC-135 engine modifications" """Boeing produced 732 KC-135 tankers for the Air Force between 1957-65; some 540 are still in service today.""" """ Boeing Awarded $61.8 Million Contract for KC/RC-135 Re-engine Work.
May 20, 2002""" """Boeing, which has delivered almost 2,000 tanker aircraft and produced virtually every air-refueling boom ever made.""" http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021213m.html It appears that Boeing has chosen many companies to assist in building the tanker fleet. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/archive2002.html """Boeing Selects Ohio Company as 767 Tanker Supplier"""
"""Boeing, Italian MoD Sign Contract for 767 Tanker Transports"""
"""Boeing Selects Florida Company as 767 Tanker Supplier"""
"""Finmeccanica Companies, Boeing Sign Agreement to Partner on 767 Tanker Aircraft Program"""
[Edited 3 times, lastly by penumbra on 05-15-2003]
|
ICU812
Senior Member
Edmonton, Canada
100 posts, Mar 2001
|
posted 06-08-2003 11:23 PM
The following page provides reference to pulications and scientific literature I have not seen before.Presented to the evidence thread, ability, capability and probability of the chemtrail program. Authenticity research and varification of the article is required.
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
