| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | we end up back at chemtrails but for a different purpose. |
This is a very different argument, as I pointed out, you are now concerned about air pollution, not a government plot to poison the world.
Given how often people claim they are seeing chemtrails over populated areas, either the government is constantly trying to get city people rained on or you have no linkage between the cloud seeding and what people claim are chemtrails. |
pepik, i have never held the postion that 'chemtrails' were harmful, i held the postion that there are different trails, contrails and some other which i did'nt know what it was i just knew it was different and not a NORMAL contrail.
i have provided enough information about cloud seeding, and saying that those who see chemtrails could well be seeing cloud seeding.
so i it is not a different arguement arguement as far as im concerned. my observation that there are different trails which are not contrails still stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now I am not taken much by Chemtrails but an observation over the Wirral today was interesting. Weather was mild and still, about 4 or 5 trails were still clearly visible right across the sky not quite parallel but generally same direction. At the same time a high altitude jet was flying at an altitude that appeared to be higher than the other trails. A contrail could clearly be seen coming from this jet and disappearing after a few minutes while the other trails remained. Would altitude/temp/pressure make a difference?
Later that afternoon a large Chinook military chopper was circling around at very low level for several hours. Never seen one before, thought at first it was the police chopper when I heard it.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: | Now I am not taken much by Chemtrails but an observation over the Wirral today was interesting. Weather was mild and still, about 4 or 5 trails were still clearly visible right across the sky not quite parallel but generally same direction. At the same time a high altitude jet was flying at an altitude that appeared to be higher than the other trails. A contrail could clearly be seen coming from this jet and disappearing after a few minutes while the other trails remained. Would altitude/temp/pressure make a difference?
Later that afternoon a large Chinook military chopper was circling around at very low level for several hours. Never seen one before, thought at first it was the police chopper when I heard it. |
Hey Mr Fish, I've been watching the sky's over the Wirral the last few months and I can tell you that it's nearly every day these Air Craft and are laying these trails, on a clear day early in the mourning if you go down to Moreton/Leasowe shore you will get a good view of the Chemtrails coming over and some of them them are big thick ones. also can sometimes see the haze on the ground from them. 
Last edited by Stephen on Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It appears that the concept of chemtrails is gaining momentum, here at least.
I have given it a lot of thought over the past week and despite the way some of my thoughts are phrased, I don’t dispel the notion out of hand. However, the fact that I plonked a question into the forum yesterday concerning a subject that so many people have strong views on – which then goes unanswered, leaves me wondering do we really have an answer to the most fundamental showstopping question about chemtrails?
To take this a stage further, I was out in the garden today building a pergola. This is a huge affair that sits between an outbuilding and the side of the house and I needed another pair of hands whilst holes were drilled and bolts fitted. So I asked my brother-in-law to help.
We’d been out for a while and I looked up to see a high altitude jet passing overhead, leaving a long unbroken trail right back to the edge of the horizon. I asked my B-I-L if he was aware of ‘chemtrails’ and he said he hadn’t heard anything about it? I outlined the basic premise, he asked some questions and appeared genuinely interested. I got two pairs of binoculars and we sat in the garden at lunchtime and for 90 minutes, we watched plane after plane leaving unbroken trail after trail.
I have to admit I have never seen so many ‘chemtrails’ in such a short period of time, but the thing that struck me most was that every aircraft for the entire 1.5 hours was leaving an unbroken trail. This actually worked against my verbal explanation to my B-I-L as I had nothing to compare them against – no regular contrails.
What added insult to injury, is having mounted my biggest pair of binoculars onto a video tripod with fluid head, I could plainly make out the type of aircraft and airline. So it was very difficult to justify any dodgy dealing aloft as every plane was doing it, clearly painted up in commercial colours. I even have a fantastically powerful telescope which although difficult to see planes through due to the level of magnification (although not used today), it leaves no question that the planes leaving unbroken trails are painted as commercial jets.
Having seen 18 such jets today – every one ‘chemtrailing’ all in a space of 90 minutes, all in commercial air lanes, all marked as commercial airliners, for me it puts a whole new spin of how this is supposedly interwoven into the regular traffic. The quantity of pilots involved must be huge – the logistics across the globe, vast.
So without the question I posed being answered;
| Quote: | | How can we be sure on a scientific level, that under certain conditions, contrails simply don’t last longer than at other times? |
Can we ever move forward? I know I can’t.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
pepik, i have never held the postion that 'chemtrails' were harmful, i held the postion that there are different trails, contrails and some other which i did'nt know what it was i just knew it was different and not a NORMAL contrail.
i have provided enough information about cloud seeding, and saying that those who see chemtrails could well be seeing cloud seeding.
so i it is not a different arguement arguement as far as im concerned. my observation that there are different trails which are not contrails still stand. |
Hi Marky
Have you ever seen a photo where a twin-engined plane is laying down more than 2 trails (however long they last), or a 4-engined plane is laying down more than 4 trails?
Wouldn't this be a requirement if a plane were blowing exhaust gasses plus some other stuff?
I've never seen such a photo, but perhaps you can put me right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
pepik, i have never held the postion that 'chemtrails' were harmful, i held the postion that there are different trails, contrails and some other which i did'nt know what it was i just knew it was different and not a NORMAL contrail.
i have provided enough information about cloud seeding, and saying that those who see chemtrails could well be seeing cloud seeding.
so i it is not a different arguement arguement as far as im concerned. my observation that there are different trails which are not contrails still stand. |
Hi Marky
Have you ever seen a photo where a twin-engined plane is laying down more than 2 trails (however long they last), or a 4-engined plane is laying down more than 4 trails?
Wouldn't this be a requirement if a plane were blowing exhaust gasses plus some other stuff?
I've never seen such a photo, but perhaps you can put me right. |
i have provided an airforce letter, news reports, information about cloud seeding, information about silver iodide which is used in cloud seeding etc etc. all the information was produced by mainstream agencies and bodys and is common knowledge.
why don't you provide something that says the information i have provided is wrong, why should i keep providing things each time a critic wants to deny the exsistence of different trails to contrails.
disprove what i have provided so far, then we can work from there.
here is the information.
| Quote: | the trails do exist, i call them chemtrails myself, not because i think they are 100% chemtrails but so people know what im refering to.
the trails 100% exsist, which is why it gives the theory more credibility when people deny they are different or appear in the sky. because when they appear in the sky again, people will be like "i thought they did'nt exsist, look theres one now being made"
at least others do not deny their exsistence or the need to find out what they are. yes jumping to conclusions is'nt good but then i don't know what evidence others are basing their opinons on.
i can only go on what i believe from the information i have looked at. when critics turn up and mock and take the piss and deny their exsistence, then i debate with them because i know the 'trails' are there and do happen. the only thing in question is what they are.
Quote:
Why waste all the vitriol on people who don't believe in chemtrails? After all we are just on one side of the fence you so often claim to sit upon. Don't you have anything to say to Karlos, or Mr Nice or conspiracy analyst? Or are you happy that they blindly assume chemtrails to exist, just as I apparently blindly assume that they don't?
i don't, they waste all the vitriol denying something that is clearly there. im not the one who turns up denying what is obviously there in the sky and occurs.
Quote:
The ball is still in Karlos's court, in terms of producing the overwhelming evidence he claims to know about, and the barium oxide claim... i'd love to see any evidence - there's certainly no point in hiding it from the rest of us.
well we'll see. i can only go on what i have read or seen with my own eyes.
the letter i linked above which mentions cloud seeding is more likely in my book, it was always one of the possibilities and there we have a airforce letter acknowleging that cloud seeding is indeed done by 'commercial companies' and that to achieve rainfall chemicals are released to make the rain droplets heavy, so who is wrong here?. unless of cause total proof comes to light saying otherwise.
http://www.carnicom.com/af1.htm
Quote:
For a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures. Cloud seeding requires the release of chemicals in the atmosphere in an effort to have water crystals attach themselves and become heavy enough to produce rain. The air force does not have cloud seeding capability. The air forces policy is to observe and forcast the weather to support military operations. The airforce is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.
so from my understanding of this letter, it is saying that chemtrails intended to kill or harm do not exsist.
however chemicals are released into the atmosphere by commercial companies inorder to cloud seed. there is no mention in this letter of if the chemicals released in this instance are harmful either short or long term on a persons health.
i would assume not harmful, but then i have no possible way of knowing this, its more a leep of faith.
but overall, it seems to me chemtrail theory is not far of the mark. if a chemtrail is a plane releasing chemicals then it seems spot on.
however if by chemtrail we mean a plane releasing harmful chemicals intended for the public in a evil plot against humanity, then it may of been exagerated.
the only reason i say may of been, is because im not sure if chemicals released for cloud seeding are harmful, however i am now more than satisfied if that is the case, then the chemicals were only meant for cloud seeding and not intended to harm the public, wether the public could be harmed as a result of cloud seeding is another matter(floods).
in other words the scenerio could be that cloud seeding is done and that the chemicals effect public health, however that was not the intention, the intention was simply cloud seeding for rainfall.
so unless proof can be provided of harmful chemicals or that cloud seeding can cause persistent rain which causes floods, i see no foul play in the trails at all.
however at the same time the trails exsist and do occur and chemicals are released into the atmosphere, they just were'nt what some people thought they were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/nhurr97/CSEED.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_iodide
http://www.pcl.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SI/silver_iodide.html
Quote:
Personal protection
Minimize exposure. Recover waste silver for re-use if possible.
Quote:
Toxicology
Not hazardous according to Directive 67/548/EEC
Quote:
Silver iodide and dry ice are the most commonly used substances in cloud seeding.
im not sure which other chemicals are sometimes used.
When studying the efficacy and consequences of cloud seeding experiments, the experimenters tend to be biased in saying cloud seeding with silver iodide enhances precipitation without negative consequences. However, much of the literature substantiates that not only does cloud seeding fail to achieve the desired effect, it also yields harmful consequences. Some of these consequences include rain suppression, flooding, tornadoes, and silver iodide toxicity. (1,2,3).........................
Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)
Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.
http://www.ranches.org/cloudSeedingHarmful.htm
who do you believe? however this does answer pepiks question of why not attack the water supply, which spraying from the sky would do, well that is assuming he knows how water circulation works.
regardless i thought i had it solved about how harmful this stuff is then i found this which says the polar opposite.
From the cytogenetic in vitro studies, it was observed that silver iodide, either in acetone solutions or as a suspension with polyacrilamide, scarcely causes a doubling effect on SCEs at nearly toxic concentrations (1 g/ml). Such a doubling effect by silver iodide on SCEs in P388 leukemia cells in vivo was not achieved even after using 100 g/g mouse body weight.
In the Ames/microsome test actually a doubling effect on revertants was only isolately achieved with 30 g/ml in TA 102 (S9-) and at 150 g/ml in TA 97 (S9+) doses, which appear to be nearly toxic for bacteria.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/40006441/ABSTRACT? CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
discussed here to.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread316081/pg1
i am now stuck again about if they are harmful or if they are not. understand that i was researching at the same time as writing this post.
so if my opinons change or sway from one side to the other please understand that i was typing this as i went along.
opinons needed. |
news reports:
aditionally see this for a dumbed down explaination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn5g4Gt_EJw
and this which shows they are working for ways to do it without the use of aircraft, and is something they are 'saying' they are doing to stop global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM
i put it to you the trails we see are the result of cloud seeding.
provide information that says they cannot be or i am wrong. do not keep asking me to provide information that is already in this thread. first alex asks, then pepik and now you. none of you have provided an ounce of evidence combating my information this far.
yet thats what im looking for. why else would i bother with critcs corner? to convince you? nope. or to get the other side of the coin? yep, however you fail to give the otherside of the coin all the time, and expect people to just take your word for it as you make claims with no evidence to back them up what so ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marky, marky, marky. Very frustrated by your last post.
| marky 54 wrote: | | i have provided an airforce letter, news reports, information about cloud seeding, information about silver iodide which is used in cloud seeding etc etc. all the information was produced by mainstream agencies and bodys and is common knowledge. |
None of it necessarily pertains to so-called chemtrails. You have provided no evidence of how cloud seeding 'looks like chemtrails'.
| Quote: | why don't you provide something that says the information i have provided is wrong, why should i keep providing things each time a critic wants to deny the exsistence of different trails to contrails.
disprove what i have provided so far, then we can work from there. |
But you have provided no evidence that cloud seeding is performed using chemical contrails - you are simply assuming that it does. I have no problem with the concept of cloud seeding, but it is an irrelevance to the debate at this stage. Or is a different debate in itself. There is no evidence whatsoever that cloud seeding is occuring in England, for example.
| Quote: | | i put it to you the trails we see are the result of cloud seeding. |
It's a theory, one which cannot be proven at this stage.
| Quote: | | provide information that says they cannot be or i am wrong. |
Yawn. Cannot prove a negative etc. You cannot prove that it is right either - you can only prove that cloud seeding exists, not that it is widespread. See the ketchup example - prove that wrong!
| Quote: | | Do not keep asking me to provide information that is already in this thread. first alex asks, then pepik and now you. none of you have provided an ounce of evidence combating my information this far. |
Nobody is trying to combat your information - don't be so defensive. You have a theory, and it might explain your dilemma about some contrails lingering and some not lingering. It MIGHT. Of course all other lingering contrails can be rationally explained already.
| Quote: | | yet thats what im looking for. why else would i bother with critcs corner? to convince you? nope. or to get the other side of the coin? yep, however you fail to give the otherside of the coin all the time, and expect people to just take your word for it as you make claims with no evidence to back them up what so ever. |
All critics are scum I'm sure.
Why don't you answer Sam's questions - they seem like reasonable questions to me...
| Quote: | Have you ever seen a photo where a twin-engined plane is laying down more than 2 trails (however long they last), or a 4-engined plane is laying down more than 4 trails?
Wouldn't this be a requirement if a plane were blowing exhaust gasses plus some other stuff?
I've never seen such a photo, but perhaps you can put me right. |
Also, just to make yourself clear Marky, do you accept the explanation that normal contrails can linger in the sky under certain conditions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
you have proved yet again you do not read the information, have the capacity to find things out yourself or even provide any information saying the opposite of what i suspect it is we are seeing that has been given the term 'chemtrail'.
cloud seeding is done in many ways one of which is spraying chemicals from AIRCRAFT! search and find out!
until critics can provide something and other than twisting words for example.
| Quote: | | Nobody is trying to combat your information - don't be so defensive. |
i want people to combat it! but with evidence! do you understand?
there is no point continuing debate, with people who deny what even mainstream sources report or find or confirm.
you don't spend time looking at information, you obviously glimpse over it then dismiss it with nothing other than an opinon, no evidence or anything to back up what you are saying.
you continually want me to provide information which you will just dimiss with no evidence to back up your claim.
whats the point? your a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | None of it necessarily pertains to so-called chemtrails. You have provided no evidence of how cloud seeding 'looks like chemtrails'.
|
no it dos'nt, however you have so far provided nothing other than an opinion which says it6 is'nt linked. cloud seeding is done with aircraft spraying chemicals, if you had watched or looked at any of the information you would of made that link long ago. failing that search to see how cloud seeding is done. at present your coming across as someone who actually knows nothing.
| Quote: | But you have provided no evidence that cloud seeding is performed using chemical contrails - you are simply assuming that it does. I have no problem with the concept of cloud seeding, but it is an irrelevance to the debate at this stage. Or is a different debate in itself. There is no evidence whatsoever that cloud seeding is occuring in England, for example.
|
wrong again. i have provided evidence that chemicals are sprayed from aircraft to cloud seed, it is hardly my fault you don't have the ability to grasp this simple fact or are able to work it out or even look at the information in the first place.
the only thing im looking for is something that says cloud seeding cannot be the trails we see. something not one critic is willing to do or has even attempted to do.
| Quote: | It's a theory, one which cannot be proven at this stage.
|
its a theory which has'nt been proven wrong at this stage. im still waiting for someone to disprove it or provide information proving it so i can ditch it or rule it out.
| Quote: | Yawn. Cannot prove a negative etc. You cannot prove that it is right either - you can only prove that cloud seeding exists, not that it is widespread. See the ketchup example - prove that wrong!
|
i can prove cloud seeding exsists, that they use chemicals, which are sprayed using aircraft. im looking for something which says the trails we see are not a result of this.
if you watched any of the video clips, you would know there is legislation being processed and this will be a widely accepted thing to avert global warming, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg 3.35 in(seeing a though you car'nt be arsed to look or read what your trying to debunk in the first place, i'll have to point to it.) just because it is not widley accepted now, dos'nt mean they are not doing it in the mean time to avert global warming without the publics knowledge.
| Quote: | Nobody is trying to combat your information - don't be so defensive. You have a theory, and it might explain your dilemma about some contrails lingering and some not lingering. It MIGHT. Of course all other lingering contrails can be rationally explained already.
|
i explained this above, i want people to combat it with the information they have, which at present is zero, just personnal opinons.
| Quote: | | All critics are scum I'm sure. |
no some critics are. its just a pity we don't have critics here capable of providing evidence to go with their total dismissal and ridicule to prove something cannot be true.
| Quote: | Why don't you answer Sam's questions - they seem like reasonable questions to me...
|
why don't people answer my questions? ive asked numerous questions or asked to be proved wrong way in advance, why should i keep providing information, then more information and more information when critics cannot provide anything at all to prove wrong the information i have provided.
critics constantly want proof but can provide none.
| Quote: | | Also, just to make yourself clear Marky, do you accept the explanation that normal contrails can linger in the sky under certain conditions? |
some of the trails seen cannot be explained by contrails. there is a variety of reasons for this. contrails are caused by conditions in the atmosphere. so the cause is known. they appear at times when others do not, suggesting the conditions are right for one plane but not the other even though they share the exact same patch of sky at roughly the same altitude.
some trails do other things which suggest they are not contrails, like switch on then off over a tiny portion of sky. or leave big gaps in the trail.
i do not need to show this, many people have seen it and recorded it. all you need do is search.
there are a array of different occurences which point to something other than atmoshereic caused contrails!. another is planes leaving no contrails, then in a 15 minute peroid 5 or 6 turn up and leave long lingering trails, followed by every other plane leaving no trail. yet the trails made in the 15 minute period remain all day! so the conditions are right for some trails but not the others? the conditions are right and wrong at the same time for contrails! how can trails remain if the conditions are wrong for other planes to even make a trail! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | None of it necessarily pertains to so-called chemtrails. You have provided no evidence of how cloud seeding 'looks like chemtrails'.
|
no it dos'nt, however you have so far provided nothing other than an opinion which says it6 is'nt linked. cloud seeding is done with aircraft spraying chemicals, if you had watched or looked at any of the information you would of made that link long ago. failing that search to see how cloud seeding is done. at present your coming across as someone who actually knows nothing. |
So you concede my point, yet I know nothing?
| Quote: | i can prove cloud seeding exsists, that they use chemicals, which are sprayed using aircraft. im looking for something which says the trails we see are not a result of this.
if you watched any of the video clips, you would know there is legislation being processed and this will be a widely accepted thing to avert global warming, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg 3.35 in(seeing a though you car'nt be arsed to look or read what your trying to debunk in the first place, i'll have to point to it.) just because it is not widley accepted now, dos'nt mean they are not doing it in the mean time to avert global warming without the publics knowledge. |
So you answer my criticism that you are asking me to prove a negative, by... asking me again to prove a negative. You are asking me to prove that certain trails in the sky, which I have already indicated that I believe to be contrails, are NOT cloud seeding trails (which may or may not be visible anyway). How in the world would I go about doing that?
Do you understand the point I am making? You are continually complaining that critics are not providing evidence, but what evidence could we produce of cloud seeding NOT being used? What evidence would you expect us to produce - give me a few examples of evidence I could provide.
| Quote: | | ...its just a pity we don't have critics here capable of providing evidence to go with their total dismissal and ridicule to prove something cannot be true. |
There you go again...
| Quote: | | Quote: | Why don't you answer Sam's questions - they seem like reasonable questions to me...
|
why don't people answer my questions? ive asked numerous questions or asked to be proved wrong way in advance, why should i keep providing information, then more information and more information when critics cannot provide anything at all to prove wrong the information i have provided.
critics constantly want proof but can provide none. |
Another snipe at 'critics' yet you won't answer certain questions put to you. Disappointing. Obviously Sam has a point, or else you would answer him. He is saying that it is unusual that nobody has seen 'chemtrails' that appear distinctly from what would be normal contrails from engines - I agree with him, it's a good point.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Also, just to make yourself clear Marky, do you accept the explanation that normal contrails can linger in the sky under certain conditions? |
some of the trails seen cannot be explained by contrails. there is a variety of reasons for this. contrails are caused by conditions in the atmosphere. so the cause is known. they appear at times when others do not, suggesting the conditions are right for one plane but not the other even though they share the exact same patch of sky at roughly the same altitude.
some trails do other things which suggest they are not contrails, like switch on then off over a tiny portion of sky. or leave big gaps in the trail. |
You are assuming that broken contrails are in some way unusual, which isn't necessarily the case.
I outlined a number of my misgivings about your ideas in my answer to Stefan. The chief one is that I think that altitude is hard to be accurate about when looking at the ground - you say that two planes went through the same patch of sky, but there might be thousands of feet difference. Which would explain why some leave contrails and some do not. There are other possibilities for this too - see my answer to Stefan.
| Quote: | | i do not need to show this, many people have seen it and recorded it. all you need do is search. |
I have yet to see a convincing display of the phenomena you are talking about. I watched the videos you linked to - the narrator told us that some planes were leaving trails and some were not, but the planes were miles apart and nothing was said about their altitudes.
| Quote: | | there are a array of different occurences which point to something other than atmoshereic caused contrails!. another is planes leaving no contrails, then in a 15 minute peroid 5 or 6 turn up and leave long lingering trails, followed by every other plane leaving no trail. yet the trails made in the 15 minute period remain all day! so the conditions are right for some trails but not the others? the conditions are right and wrong at the same time for contrails! how can trails remain if the conditions are wrong for other planes to even make a trail! |
Again, I would like to see proper evidence of this. Apologies for being obtuse on this particular issue, but evidence for these things is actually very sketchy. Both you and Stefan say that you have seen it, but for obvious reasons I can't take your descriptions at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So you concede my point, yet I know nothing?
|
no i concede your point, then totally disagree with the other.
| Quote: | point one: None of it necessarily pertains to so-called chemtrails. point two: You have provided no evidence of how cloud seeding 'looks like chemtrails'.
|
| Quote: | So you answer my criticism that you are asking me to prove a negative, by... asking me again to prove a negative. You are asking me to prove that certain trails in the sky, which I have already indicated that I believe to be contrails, are NOT cloud seeding trails (which may or may not be visible anyway). How in the world would I go about doing that?
|
you must base your findings that cloud seeding plays no part what so ever with what people witness and see and which has been given the term 'chemtrail' on something?
what do you base it on other than a opinon, i have shown what i base my opinon on, it was'nt hard. your the one telling me im wrong, im not the one telling you that you are wrong, im just asking you to show that im wrong. you made the claim the information i provided is bull, provide reasons why, with some sort of back up information.
otherwise i have no reason to believe you, and no information that says it car'nt be possible.
| Quote: | Do you understand the point I am making? You are continually complaining that critics are not providing evidence, but what evidence could we produce of cloud seeding NOT being used? What evidence would you expect us to produce - give me a few examples of evidence I could provide.
|
so theres no evidence you can provide to say the theory is indeed incorrect? that dos'nt mean the information i provided is the case and is happening, but you can provide nothing to eliminate it out of the list of possibilities?
a suggest would be using your search tool, type in cloud seeding and start from there. like i did. look for anything i might of missed or anything that supports your arguement.
| Quote: | Another snipe at 'critics' yet you won't answer certain questions put to you. Disappointing. Obviously Sam has a point, or else you would answer him. He is saying that it is unusual that nobody has seen 'chemtrails' that appear distinctly from what would be normal contrails from engines - I agree with him, it's a good point.
|
no its not a snipe, it is a very valid observation, please point out your proof that supports your claims so far in this thread.
| Quote: | You are assuming that broken contrails are in some way unusual, which isn't necessarily the case.
|
there we go again, a claim with no proof. evidence for that would help, and you can add it to the list of information you should be looking for to prove gaps in trails are perfectly normal.
| Quote: | | I outlined a number of my misgivings about your ideas in my answer to Stefan. The chief one is that I think that altitude is hard to be accurate about when looking at the ground - you say that two planes went through the same patch of sky, but there might be thousands of feet difference. Which would explain why some leave contrails and some do not. There are other possibilities for this too - see my answer to Stefan |
surely there should be information out there confirming this is possible?
ie: two craft leaving different contrails at different altitudes in the same sky.
| Quote: | I have yet to see a convincing display of the phenomena you are talking about. I watched the videos you linked to - the narrator told us that some planes were leaving trails and some were not, but the planes were miles apart and nothing was said about their altitudes.
|
the point in the news reports was'nt to show what people claim, but rather what the news reporters uncovered themselves. secrect spraying, legislation etc etc that type of stuff. i can understand you ignoring those parts and picking up on the parts that only 'conspracy theorists' say, as they are the only bits you can argue over.
| Quote: | | Again, I would like to see proper evidence of this. Apologies for being obtuse on this particular issue, but evidence for these things is actually very sketchy. Both you and Stefan say that you have seen it, but for obvious reasons I can't take your descriptions at face value. |
don't worry many people do and will, wether you will i have no idea, it does involve looking up and taking notice. something i doubt you'd do.
and i just want to see some sort of information that means i can ditch this theory, rather than it being a case of......
1 look at this
2 its wrong
1 why?
2 its just wrong, provide evidence
1 ok here you are
2 it's wrong
1 why?
2 its just wrong provide evidence
1 but you have not shown why its wrong
2 because if i turn up and say its wrong then it just is |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought cloud seeding didn't create the cloud itself, it just encouraged the cloud to rain over a particular spot where it otherwise might not.
In which chemtrails in a clear blue sky would make no sense.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | I thought cloud seeding didn't create the cloud itself, it just encouraged the cloud to rain over a particular spot where it otherwise might not.
In which chemtrails in a clear blue sky would make no sense. |
good point, i did a quick search and came up with this.
making clouds and rain
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/makerain.htm
| Quote: | First, we need two basic ingredients: water and dust.
|
| Quote: | Dust is needed for condensation nuclei, sites on which water vapour may condense or deposit as a liquid or solid. Certain types and shapes of dust and salt particles, such as sea salts and clay, make the best condensation nuclei.
|
now im not saying this is the case, but it could be possible that cloud seeding and cloud making is taking place.
salt is use and so is dry ice, its open for debate but would this constitue water and dust if sprayed in fine particles together?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn5g4Gt_EJw
3 types of things typically used for cloud seeding.
silver iodide, dry ice, salt.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_clouds_made_of |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | I thought cloud seeding didn't create the cloud itself, it just encouraged the cloud to rain over a particular spot where it otherwise might not.
In which chemtrails in a clear blue sky would make no sense. |
That's correct. In fact "plane trails" (to use a neutral phrase) are mostly reported during high-pressure weather in winter, i.e. during cold and clear weather. During these phases there are no clouds to seed, so to suggest an epidemic of cloud-seeding at these times is preposterous.
To deduce why one contrail persists while another doesn't, we would need to know the altitudes of the planes and the temperatures+wind conditions at those altitudes. Chemtrail freaks are much more interested in feeding their attention-seeking paranoid tendencies than conducting actual research, such as getting high-res photos of the planes to demonstrate the formation of "chemtrails" independently of the jet exhaust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | are mostly reported during high-pressure weather in winter |
do you take the calls? how do you know this for certain? i aint saying it aint true, i'm just intrested how you would know?
| Quote: | | during cold and clear weather. During these phases there are no clouds to seed |
depends where you live, and what climate you live in dos'nt it? its always cloudy here in the winter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Chemtrail freaks are much more interested in feeding their attention-seeking paranoid tendencies |
proposing a possibility that is not in anyway for evil purposes but rather to avert global warming and which could explain the 'different trail' is a paranoid tendency?
i could understand if there was no such thing as global warming and no urgency worldwide to do something about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wikepedia wrote: | | Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei. The usual intent is to increase precipitation, but hail suppression is also widely practiced. Silver iodide and dry ice are the most commonly used substances in cloud seeding. |
This is the very first paragraph of the wikipedia page. It seems to make clear that cloud seeding, as I suggested, "changes the amount of precipitation" but does not create clouds.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How can we be sure on a scientific level, that under certain conditions, contrails simply don’t last longer than at other times? |
I completely agree, it would be a major step forward if someone could present the the scientific data that proves what we are seeing are not normal contrails, or persistant trails as they have been called. I'm sure it's not beyond you tele to do the appropriate research and post your conclusions. It's been interesting watching your slowly changing opinion on this phenomena, and demonstrates an open mind. Hope that doesn't sound condescending.
Without the science however I still remain 99% convinced that what we are seeing are not normal trails and this is why:
The method of spraying various agents from planes has been used many times before (as seen from the various links posted on chemtrail threads),
both for tests on civilians and in experiments to better understand the atmoshere.
Links to patents showing devices that can be fitted to planes for the purposes of spraying agents into the atmosphere, even descriptions of the on / off capabilities that we actually see in so many trails that begin / end then linger for hours.
Any production you will see, film or tv shows will not have persistant trails before approx' 1997, after that date they are a common site.
The 'open skies treaty' puts in place the operational framework to conduct these exercises. Ostensibly to allow transparancy for all signatory nations allowing anyones military planes to fly over countries of those nations.
| Quote: | | the Treaty itself was an initiative of President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. The United States ratified it in 1993. |
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2004/33147.htm
It was said to have come into effect in 2002.
How the 'chemtrail' phenomena fits so well with military technologies known to exist, in that it can alter the atmosphere to make those technologies more efficient.
And finally when I see them they look so f ing weird.
I think this list could go on .... but I wont. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the Met Office's spin on the subject. They seem to think that the air needs to be sufficiently cold and humid for persistent trails. This still doesn't explain the trails that start and stop abruptly or indeed trails laid on hot dry days during the summer. The crazy thing is that I have heard a weather man say that weather modification does go on but bizarrely, they still think that all trails are contrails. 
| Quote: |
CONDENSATION TRAILS (contrails) form in the wake of aircraft when the air is sufficiently cold and humid. They are often short-lived (top photograph), but, especially when cirrus and cirrostratus are present, they may spread out and persist for several hours (bottom photograph). Persistent trails are reported by using the CH code figure most appropriate; sometimes it is impossible to distinguish between old trails and cloud. They may produce halo phenomena with exceptionally pure colours. Over Great Britain they rarely form below 28,000 ft in summer and 20,000 ft in winter. They may cast shadows on thin clouds beneath them. A series of such shadows may be the only indication that there is more than one layer of cloud present.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/clouds/special/ |
_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | CONDENSATION TRAILS (contrails) form in the wake of aircraft when the air is sufficiently cold and humid. They are often short-lived (top photograph), but, especially when cirrus and cirrostratus are present, they may spread out and persist for several hours |
They persist and spread out regardless of the presence of clouds, seen them many times in a cloudless sky. After some op's they actually become the clouds in a blue sky and eventually all you have is the white haze. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ishaar wrote: | I completely agree, it would be a major step forward if someone could present the the scientific data that proves what we are seeing are not normal contrails, or persistant trails as they have been called. I'm sure it's not beyond you tele to do the appropriate research and post your conclusions. It's been interesting watching your slowly changing opinion on this phenomena, and demonstrates an open mind. Hope that doesn't sound condescending.
Without the science however I still remain 99% convinced that what we are seeing are not normal trails and this is why: |
I have always strived to highlight my ability to remain flexible regarding subjects being debated. It is my chosen philosophy to never subscribe to any particular ideology until ‘proven’. Some would see this as a lack of commitment which is cool, but I would point out that my view on this has never changed for the question I have asked about persistent contrails has always been there, sitting waiting to be answered. With the growing thrust, I felt now ultimately would be a good time to get it put to bed.
With regards to your point about doing my own research, I have been doing that for months about the whole con/chemtrail thing. I have read both low and high level explanations as to why some trails linger and form into clouds whilst others simply vanish. In addition, I have also laboured through countless videos, chemtrail sites and forum entries pertaining to what we are being sprayed with and why.
However, none-bar-none ever tackle the question of how we can be sure that under certain conditions, contrails simply don’t last longer than at other times? Any potential ‘tackling’ of this is always along the lines of yourself – ‘Without the science however I still remain 99% convinced that what we are seeing are not normal trails’.
No-one is prepared to say why the official explanation cannot be factual based on science.
My understanding of why trails stop and start is that the sky is littered with patches of differing temperatures. When a plane enters an area where the temperature changes, it ceases to be visible. Two miles further on, the plane exits the eddy the trail can again be seen.
This is a good fairly high level view;
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/Contrail_Formation_Englis h.jpg
Excellent low level take on contrails per se;
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/News3.Eng.pdf
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Telecasterisation
I see your sig says "I completely challenge the official version of events - I am not a 9/11 Truth Critic"
Do you "completely challenge" the 9/11 OT as a single piece of work in the broad sense, while being prepared to accept certain elements of it?
Or do you challenge every single detail of the OT?
I think we should be told!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | Hello Telecasterisation
I see your sig says "I completely challenge the official version of events - I am not a 9/11 Truth Critic"
Do you "completely challenge" the 9/11 OT as a single piece of work in the broad sense, while being prepared to accept certain elements of it?
Or do you challenge every single detail of the OT?
I think we should be told! |
Hi Sam, I can see you are a thoughtful and erudite human being.
By 'we', I am guessing you refer to everyone else who has joined in the last four weeks?
I also must ask if 'OT' stands for Official Theory?
If so, I don't acknowledge there is an official 'theory', only the official version/story.
If you use the word 'Theory' - then you are accepting it is at least plausible as a possibility. We say it didn't happen that way, so it is the Official Lie and not even theoretical from our perspective. Hence, 'Theory' cannot be used in this context.
However, to tackle your question in a broader sense, I believe aircraft were used which agrees with aspects of the official line. Therefore I don't dispel the entire concocted story, only aspects of it.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | sam wrote: | Hello Telecasterisation
I see your sig says "I completely challenge the official version of events - I am not a 9/11 Truth Critic"
Do you "completely challenge" the 9/11 OT as a single piece of work in the broad sense, while being prepared to accept certain elements of it?
Or do you challenge every single detail of the OT?
I think we should be told! |
Hi Sam, I can see you are a thoughtful and erudite human being.
By 'we', I am guessing you refer to everyone else who has joined in the last four weeks?
I also must ask if 'OT' stands for Official Theory?
If so, I don't acknowledge there is an official 'theory', only the official version/story.
If you use the word 'Theory' - then you are accepting it is at least plausible as a possibility. We say it didn't happen that way, so it is the Official Lie and not even theoretical from our perspective. Hence, 'Theory' cannot be used in this context.
However, to tackle your question in a broader sense, I believe aircraft were used which agrees with aspects of the official line. Therefore I don't dispel the entire concocted story, only aspects of it. |
Hello again
Yes, "OT" seems to mean "Official Theory" everywhere I've looked in the world of 9/11 debate, just as "CT" means "Conspiracy Theory".
And "we should be told" was just a feeble plagiarism of Private Eye. I don't know if you read it.
But .. you "believe aircraft were used which agrees with aspects of the official line".
Do you believe miltant Islamist hijackers took them over and plunged three of them into very large buildings? If not, what is your view on how those planes were - shall we say - "deployed"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | Hello again
Yes, "OT" seems to mean "Official Theory" everywhere I've looked in the world of 9/11 debate, just as "CT" means "Conspiracy Theory".
And "we should be told" was just a feeble plagiarism of Private Eye. I don't know if you read it.
But .. you "believe aircraft were used which agrees with aspects of the official line".
Do you believe miltant Islamist hijackers took them over and plunged three of them into very large buildings? If not, what is your view on how those planes were - shall we say - "deployed"? |
Hello Sam (I hope that's not too formal),
From your angle of approach, I conclude that you are a relabelled NPT'er, attempting to slap in a good dollop of no-planey type shenanigans. So let's see how it pans out.
No, I don't believe the planes were hijacked. The main reason being, the complete lack of any experience of flying such aircraft at the speeds in question. Combine this with the blind acceptance of being controlled by a few men with pen knives.
I have no definitive view on the deployment of the aircraft. Probably remote controlled, the alternative being extremely patriotic pilots.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | sam wrote: | Hello again
Yes, "OT" seems to mean "Official Theory" everywhere I've looked in the world of 9/11 debate, just as "CT" means "Conspiracy Theory".
And "we should be told" was just a feeble plagiarism of Private Eye. I don't know if you read it.
But .. you "believe aircraft were used which agrees with aspects of the official line".
Do you believe miltant Islamist hijackers took them over and plunged three of them into very large buildings? If not, what is your view on how those planes were - shall we say - "deployed"? |
Hello Sam (I hope that's not too formal),
From your angle of approach, I conclude that you are a relabelled NPT'er, attempting to slap in a good dollop of no-planey type shenanigans. So let's see how it pans out.
No, I don't believe the planes were hijacked. The main reason being, the complete lack of any experience of flying such aircraft at the speeds in question. Combine this with the blind acceptance of being controlled by a few men with pen knives.
I have no definitive view on the deployment of the aircraft. Probably remote controlled, the alternative being extremely patriotic pilots. |
NPT is one of the barmiest 9/11 CT lines I've had the displeasure to encounter. Pretty much on a par with space beams and mini-nukes and all the other insane guff that deluded dolts sometimes come up with.
However, I can just about see how you might have interpreted my question that way.
Remote controlled? Really? Empty aircrew seats as the plane sat there loading passengers? Cardboard cutout pilots as they taxied over to the runway in plain view of the control tower? Relayed sound and vision to a ground station controlling the plane? That's an awful lot of audo-visual and servo equipment installed by somebody, sometime, and somehow unnoticed on the previous hop. And the cabin crew didn't notice the absence of pilots? Strewth.
Seems more than implausible to me, but I'd be interested in your take on the pure logistics of pulling off such a feat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
sammy boy/girl asked some stuff
You have painted quite the Constable masterpiece by joining just the few dots I supplied. I actually hadn't even contemplated that the aircraft took off with no crew aboard.
Again, it is all pure conjecture, but two possibilities;
Either the plane was diverted and replaced, or everyone 'put to sleep' by gas/whatever and then remotely piloted - both meant the passengers were killed (although what a great premise for a movie - one of the passengers who was known to have been on-board, phones a relative telling them they are okay. As long as Uma Thurman doesn't play that part though).
There are a number of other versions, but who knows for sure?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | sammy boy/girl asked some stuff
You have painted quite the Constable masterpiece by joining just the few dots I supplied. I actually hadn't even contemplated that the aircraft took off with no crew aboard.
<snip>
|
Well, it's just one picture that could be painted from your very brief outline. But I'm surprised you can throw a phrase like "remote controlled" into the arena without going one step further and considering the implications of the various methods of implementing "remote control" of commercial aircraft that are to be used to destroy major buildings. Or even considering whether the technology even existed at the time for those particular aircraft.
But I seem to have started this little debate in the wrong sub-forum. Apologies.
p.s. I'm a retired male. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
sam;
| Quote: | Well, it's just one picture that could be painted from your very brief outline. But I'm surprised you can throw a phrase like "remote controlled" into the arena without going one step further and considering the implications of the various methods of implementing "remote control" of commercial aircraft that are to be used to destroy major buildings. Or even considering whether the technology even existed at the time for those particular aircraft.
But I seem to have started this little debate in the wrong sub-forum. Apologies.
p.s. I'm a retired male. |
I would never have even considered the possibility of remote control if I hadn't looked at the technical improbability first. Jets have been remote controlled for over a quarter of a century - the NASA Dryden 707 test crash was back in 1984 I believe. Combine this with today's fly-by-wire technology plus whatever else is used to guide smart bombs, and there would be zero problem implementing RC if the aircraft were switched.
However, it is all theoretical.
Retiring from being male is major step, good luck with the surgery.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
