nope, not buying it.

Have you seen the health of the average American and the chemical and hormonal synthesized food stuffs that lower income people are forced to eat?  When it comes to health, Honey boo boo is the norm.  Content?  Does the modern, industrialized world really produce contentment? Distraction would be a more accurate term.  BTW, you should look up more often.

Imagine the convo:
"We need more workers that will do our bidding. I'm thinking we should we make them stronger and longer lived and more content. Then they'll be of more use to us overlords."
   "No, let's sedate them! Then they'll be more dependent on government handouts!"
"Well that's not right. Has anyone really thought this through fully?"

omg! it's all true!

ssshhhhhhh!

WHAT #''&%*ß@ CHEMICALS???!!!  ARRRRGGGHH!!

ß

WHAT #''&%*ß@ CHEMICALS???!!!  ARRRRGGGHH!!

Are you inferring that these chemicals can be safely added to fuel without engine system failures ? 

OMG, don't let me get started on Monsanto.   I also realize this is not the ideal forum for these types of discussions mostly because this is a radio station forum and also because the regulars here are hostile to our points of view which is fine. However like you this forum and FB are my last link to the online world and I try to stay away from expressing opinions on FB because I know the NSA monitors FB and other social networking sites intensively and do not want any trouble. It is far less likely they are monitoring this forum very closely so this my sole outlet of expression much to the dismay of the Rpeep regulars and for this I do apologize.  I actually restrain myself from posting everything that I think out of respect for the people that solely want to use this forum for casual social expression, but hey the threads do exists so vatta u gonna do sometimes I can't resist!

 sirdroseph wrote:
In so many words, I agree with your take on its contribution.  Until yesterday, I never linked it in my arguments.  I threw it in to broaden the discussion as it has been mostly ignored as a contributor to global warming in most discussions.
 
It has long ago morphed from just weather modification.  Maybe how it began, but its much more than that now.

Let's look at Monsanto and their monumental undertakings in developing and patenting gmo crops that are aluminum loving and can tolerate the rising levels in the soil.  Monsanto's efforts in this have long been discussed and links to their projects can be found by backscrolling in this thread and the Monsanto thread.

I give up. 

Anyone have a towel? I need to throw it. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I would like to make it clear that what is considered to be chemtrails is not a product of jet exhaust.  That is the common misconception that is used to debunk this.  It is the result of chemicals being sprayed from nozzles ala crop dusting / sky writing by non commercial and military aviation.

I could be wrong, but while jet engines are turbines which can burn just about anything, I cannot see how they can deal with all these chemicals and metals and not fail.  How could they be held in suspension in Jet A for long periods of time and not foul the fuel system ?  Funny how no one has used this as an argument against the existence of chemtrails.

Actually Kurt, I have a little different take on it.  I do believe climate change has been excacerbated by man and that it is a natural inevitability as well however I don't think that geo engineering is the cause of global warming but a later further excacerbating factor.  My opinion is that this was started as a weather modification military project to gain obvious strategic advantage by manipulating the weather for combat purposes and now they are expanding as a misguided attempt to curb global warming hyper accelerated by the industrial age.  I do think that a lot of climate change alarmists including Al Gore   and myself consider chemtrails as a major threat to even more accelerating global warming and make up a large portion of those concerned with this issue.

Kurt, there is a lot of gunk in standard jet fuel. It is basically close to diesel. Ever seen the brown haze coming out the back of a jet engine? Isn't this enough to explain the things you see? They are not clean machines.

Given that a plane like a 747 burns 5 gallons of fuel per mile, we can say on average 2 gallons is burnt by commercial aircraft per mile (probably an overestimate but, hey)
Now, if you think about how many miles are flown per day (there are no statistics on this but I found this rough indication:

American Airlines, the world's largest airline, has about 600 aircraft flying on a given day.  Each is in the air for an average of about seven hours.  That's 4200 hours per day.  At about 500 miles per hour, that gives you 2.1 million miles per day, or about 766 million miles per year.

And if you think there are roughly about 17000 passenger aircraft alone flying each day at, say, 3000 miles per day, that gives you 51 million miles per day at 2 gallons per mile, or 100 million gallons per day. Let's deduct a huge safety margin and say 20 million gallons per day are burned by commercial airliners alone. Now look at those wonderful maps showing where planes fly. Here's one for the US:



And let's say the US accounts for a quarter of all air traffic (wild guess). Then you are going to get 5 million gallons of aviation fuel generating exhaust (hydrocarbons and additives) that is spewed into your lovely US atmosphere each day.  Get the picture?

To get the same effect from chemtrails, you are going to need literally mountains of chemicals shunted up into the sky and dispersed and all of this surreptiously without anyone noticing.
Get the picture?  The numbers just don't add up.