Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.conspiracy > #274126 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-28 12:42 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-01-29 17:34 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy
Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-28 12:42 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 11:48 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-01-31 13:05 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 05:00 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 03:59 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-29 10:05 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:33 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-30 10:08 -0500
Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:23 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-30 20:01 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 00:03 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-31 09:25 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 05:06 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? naazim palan <naazimpalan@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 09:27 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:44 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 12:19 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:32 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:25 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 05:02 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-01 18:39 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-02-01 14:26 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 19:52 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 15:12 +1100
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 21:13 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 16:58 +1100
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 03:32 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-02 10:53 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:05 +1100
Re: Why Chemtrails? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-02-02 01:53 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 03:30 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-02-01 14:25 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-02 10:51 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-02 19:01 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:30 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 03:45 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 04:32 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 18:45 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:59 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-03 15:17 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:17 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 03:22 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-04 12:39 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 20:23 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:31 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:36 +1100
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:46 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:51 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-03 19:37 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:51 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:50 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 17:22 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 03:22 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2016-02-04 01:25 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-04 10:47 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 14:43 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 03:29 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 15:54 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-02 17:26 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 00:01 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-03 00:41 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 04:33 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:30 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? naazim palan <naazimpalan@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 09:31 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:31 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 10:07 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-31 09:34 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:46 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-31 23:08 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:16 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 18:13 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:04 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 20:57 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:35 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:34 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 23:53 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:24 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-30 08:59 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:22 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-30 14:27 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:56 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:15 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:26 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:57 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-30 10:04 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:13 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:25 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:57 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-31 09:38 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:41 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:46 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 12:20 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-31 23:09 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-29 12:27 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:20 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:35 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-30 10:06 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:34 -0600
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 11:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <1b1f51d0-8d08-43e4-a2a6-3ef6bc985a52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #274297 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a > >>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your > >>>>>> shortcomings, however. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This > >>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to > >>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one > >>>>> has. > >>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, > >>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been > >>>>> found to be insane. > >>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is > >>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. > >>>>> > >>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. > >>> > >>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. > >>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. > >> > >>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only > >>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" > >>the right truth. > > > > HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. > > The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the > > truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be > > water vapors. > > Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel > combustion products. > > > You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable > > evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't. > > Verifiable with binoculars. > > -- > Jim Pennino The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edrhodes@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 14:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <a16c1899-9804-4df9-8495-8f5d7bc99384@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #274300 |
> The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 19:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <fa87b26b-862a-40f7-ae65-829ebdcb299b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #274311 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: > > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close > > The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. No the determining factor is evaporation.Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel.Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale.I spelled the right tale correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 15:12 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <hca0bbhm8k1gmjmcaaijbvrkpsm7ppdahu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274316 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:52:34 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: >> > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close >> >> The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. > >No the determining factor is evaporation. Yes, and temperature determines evaporation, along with humidity. The temperatures at 30,000 feet are in the order of -40° (C of F). Very cold. Very cold things don't evaporate very well. Humidity varies from day to day and from one flight level to another. Evaporation is slow in areas of high relative humidity and quicker in low. This accounts for the variation from place to place and day to day. Temperature and relative humidity at various altitudes for the USA can be found at this website: http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html >Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel. Contrails are water vapour. Water is a resultant from burning fuel (a hydrocarbon) with oxygen. If there is any residual fuel it would be an extremely small percentage. >Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale. Jet fuel is burnt in jet engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers spend millions of dollars developing engines which burn as close to 100% of the jet fuel introduced to the engine as possible. This is called "fuel efficiency" and is a big selling point for said engines. >I spelled the right tale correctly. No. No you didn't. Shill #2 -- Roses are red, violets are blue, one of us is a moron, I think that it's you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 21:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <db7ec0b3-738e-4e89-b40c-c05d269c3005@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #274317 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:12:59 PM UTC-5, Government Shill #2 wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:52:34 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close > >> > >> The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. > > > >No the determining factor is evaporation. > > Yes, and temperature determines evaporation, along with humidity. The > temperatures at 30,000 feet are in the order of -40° (C of F). Very cold. Very > cold things don't evaporate very well. > > Humidity varies from day to day and from one flight level to another. > Evaporation is slow in areas of high relative humidity and quicker in low. This > accounts for the variation from place to place and day to day. > > Temperature and relative humidity at various altitudes for the USA can be found > at this website: > http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html > > >Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel. > > Contrails are water vapour. Water is a resultant from burning fuel (a > hydrocarbon) with oxygen. If there is any residual fuel it would be an extremely > small percentage. > > >Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale. > > Jet fuel is burnt in jet engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers spend millions > of dollars developing engines which burn as close to 100% of the jet fuel > introduced to the engine as possible. This is called "fuel efficiency" and is a > big selling point for said engines. > > >I spelled the right tale correctly. > > No. No you didn't. > > Shill #2 > -- > Roses are red, > violets are blue, > one of us is a moron, > I think that it's you. The tale is visible for hours.Jets dump fuel before landing these contrails evaporate quickly not like the deadly toxins in Chemtrails that pollute the water and kill off the sheeple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 16:58 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <qig0bb9er0gi9brdv1kd12bmd7gl5he40k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274320 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:13:38 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:12:59 PM UTC-5, Government Shill #2 wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:52:34 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close >> >> >> >> The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. >> > >> >No the determining factor is evaporation. >> >> Yes, and temperature determines evaporation, along with humidity. The >> temperatures at 30,000 feet are in the order of -40° (C of F). Very cold. Very >> cold things don't evaporate very well. >> >> Humidity varies from day to day and from one flight level to another. >> Evaporation is slow in areas of high relative humidity and quicker in low. This >> accounts for the variation from place to place and day to day. >> >> Temperature and relative humidity at various altitudes for the USA can be found >> at this website: >> http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html >> >> >Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel. >> >> Contrails are water vapour. Water is a resultant from burning fuel (a >> hydrocarbon) with oxygen. If there is any residual fuel it would be an extremely >> small percentage. >> >> >Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale. >> >> Jet fuel is burnt in jet engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers spend millions >> of dollars developing engines which burn as close to 100% of the jet fuel >> introduced to the engine as possible. This is called "fuel efficiency" and is a >> big selling point for said engines. >> >> >I spelled the right tale correctly. >> >> No. No you didn't. >> > >The tale is visible for hours. Nope. Still wrong. >Jets dump fuel before landing No. Only if they have to land immediately after takeoff, when they would normally be too heavy to land, and even then they usually fly around and burn the excess off. >these contrails evaporate quickly not like the deadly toxins in Chemtrails that pollute the water and kill off the sheeple. For which there has been no evidence provided, whatsoever. Shill #2 -- Liar, liar, pants on fire. Me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 03:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <1rt0bbd7n5vn199odp3vktbh8i7i9b50m2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274320 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:13:38 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:12:59 PM UTC-5, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:52:34 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close
>> >>
>> >> The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor.
>> >
>> >No the determining factor is evaporation.
>>
>> Yes, and temperature determines evaporation, along with humidity. The
>> temperatures at 30,000 feet are in the order of -40° (C of F). Very cold. Very
>> cold things don't evaporate very well.
>>
>> Humidity varies from day to day and from one flight level to another.
>> Evaporation is slow in areas of high relative humidity and quicker in low. This
>> accounts for the variation from place to place and day to day.
>>
>> Temperature and relative humidity at various altitudes for the USA can be found
>> at this website:
>> http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html
>>
>> >Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel.
>>
>> Contrails are water vapour. Water is a resultant from burning fuel (a
>> hydrocarbon) with oxygen. If there is any residual fuel it would be an extremely
>> small percentage.
>>
>> >Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale.
>>
>> Jet fuel is burnt in jet engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers spend millions
>> of dollars developing engines which burn as close to 100% of the jet fuel
>> introduced to the engine as possible. This is called "fuel efficiency" and is a
>> big selling point for said engines.
>>
>> >I spelled the right tale correctly.
>>
>> No. No you didn't.
>>
>> Shill #2
>> --
>> Roses are red,
>> violets are blue,
>> one of us is a moron,
>> I think that it's you.
>
>The tale is visible for hours.
You are telling quite the tale.
>Jets dump fuel before landing
Since when?
>these contrails evaporate quickly
Whereas it's very, very rare for a plane to dump its fuel, this
lie will not work for you.
>not like the deadly toxins in Chemtrails that pollute the water and kill off the sheeple.
There are no such toxins (you're free to provide valid,
verifiable evidence that there are). Because of this, your lie fails.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 10:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311a9ae71e3c37b198c4bc@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #274317 |
In article <hca0bbhm8k1gmjmcaaijbvrkpsm7ppdahu@4ax.com>, gov.shill@gmail.com says... > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:52:34 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close > >> > >> The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. > > > >No the determining factor is evaporation. > > Yes, and temperature determines evaporation, along with humidity. The > temperatures at 30,000 feet are in the order of -40° (C of F). Very cold. Very > cold things don't evaporate very well. > > Humidity varies from day to day and from one flight level to another. > Evaporation is slow in areas of high relative humidity and quicker in low. This > accounts for the variation from place to place and day to day. > > Temperature and relative humidity at various altitudes for the USA can be found > at this website: > http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html > > >Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel. > > Contrails are water vapour. Water is a resultant from burning fuel (a > hydrocarbon) with oxygen. If there is any residual fuel it would be an extremely > small percentage. > > >Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale. > > Jet fuel is burnt in jet engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers spend millions > of dollars developing engines which burn as close to 100% of the jet fuel > introduced to the engine as possible. This is called "fuel efficiency" and is a > big selling point for said engines. > > >I spelled the right tale correctly. > > No. No you didn't. > > Shill #2 You wasted your time. All that science stuff is kryptonite to kOOks, they run from it. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 07:05 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <0032bbtmd1534u2a268hui4l67eaoj97ov@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274336 |
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:53:01 -0500, BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote: >In article <hca0bbhm8k1gmjmcaaijbvrkpsm7ppdahu@4ax.com>, >gov.shill@gmail.com says... >> >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:52:34 -0800 (PST), joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close >> >> >> >> The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. >> > >> >No the determining factor is evaporation. >> >> Yes, and temperature determines evaporation, along with humidity. The >> temperatures at 30,000 feet are in the order of -40° (C of F). Very cold. Very >> cold things don't evaporate very well. >> >> Humidity varies from day to day and from one flight level to another. >> Evaporation is slow in areas of high relative humidity and quicker in low. This >> accounts for the variation from place to place and day to day. >> >> Temperature and relative humidity at various altitudes for the USA can be found >> at this website: >> http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/naconf.html >> >> >Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel. >> >> Contrails are water vapour. Water is a resultant from burning fuel (a >> hydrocarbon) with oxygen. If there is any residual fuel it would be an extremely >> small percentage. >> >> >Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale. >> >> Jet fuel is burnt in jet engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers spend millions >> of dollars developing engines which burn as close to 100% of the jet fuel >> introduced to the engine as possible. This is called "fuel efficiency" and is a >> big selling point for said engines. >> >> >I spelled the right tale correctly. >> >> No. No you didn't. >> >> Shill #2 > >You wasted your time. All that science stuff is kryptonite to kOOks, >they run from it. Yeah, I know. Pigeons! Shill #2 -- My favorite thing about the Internet is that you get to go into the private world of real creeps without having to smell them. - Penn Jillette
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edrhodes@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 01:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <bc47e5eb-2fb3-4233-850c-bfaa04b96e05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #274316 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 10:52:36 PM UTC-5, joeturn wrote: > On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, edrh...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close > > > > The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor. > > No the determining factor is evaporation.Chemtrails don't evaporate as fast as contrails filled with only jet fuel.Jet fuel evaporates very quickly thus they don't have an everlasting tale.I spelled the right tale correctly. The temperture of the air might be the determining factor as to why some contrails don't evorate as quickly as others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 03:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <5ot0bb9dbt2220iv012j00h4m6433ohr3l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274311 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:26:09 -0800 (PST), edrhodes@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> The difference between contrails and chemtrails. Chemtrails stay visible for hours where as contrails vanish following the plane close
>
>The temperature of the sky just might be more of a factor.
Humidity will also be a factor.
I've never seen contrails dissipate quickly. This includes during
my youth in Krakow, Poland. Which kind of ruins the whole "The U.S.
Government is poisoning its citizens!" argument with me.
Living in "fly over" country (be honest, does anyone reading
think of Iowa as a vacation destination?), I have the opportunity to
see contrails most every day. I've never experienced anything I should
have if they were/are chemtrails.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edrhodes@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 14:25 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <44344c42-df19-4151-938c-264be50cb676@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #274297 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a > >>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your > >>>>>> shortcomings, however. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This > >>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to > >>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one > >>>>> has. > >>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, > >>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been > >>>>> found to be insane. > >>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is > >>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. > >>>>> > >>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. > >>> > >>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. > >>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. > >> > >>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only > >>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" > >>the right truth. > > > > HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. > > The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the > > truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be > > water vapors. > > Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel > combustion products. > > > You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable > > evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't. > > Verifiable with binoculars. You can tell the chemical composition of contrails with binoculars? That's impressive. How do you do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 10:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311a9a7ad1d1a40098c4bb@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #274310 |
In article <44344c42-df19-4151-938c-264be50cb676@googlegroups.com>, edrhodes@hotmail.com says... > > On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > >>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a > > >>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your > > >>>>>> shortcomings, however. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This > > >>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to > > >>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one > > >>>>> has. > > >>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, > > >>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been > > >>>>> found to be insane. > > >>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is > > >>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. > > >>>>> > > >>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. > > >>> > > >>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. > > >>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. > > >> > > >>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only > > >>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" > > >>the right truth. > > > > > > HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. > > > The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the > > > truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be > > > water vapors. > > > > Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel > > combustion products. > > > > > You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable > > > evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't. > > > > Verifiable with binoculars. > > You can tell the chemical composition of contrails with binoculars? That's impressive. How do you do it? The kOOks are very magical. The feel it, and it happens. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 03:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <ppt0bblbeamo6hutpb98q440onqgl7tqc8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274297 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>> has.
>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>
>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>the right truth.
>>
>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>> water vapors.
>
>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>combustion products.
>
I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>> You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable
>> evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't.
>
>Verifiable with binoculars.
How would the use of binoculars prove contrails are actually
chemtrails? Sure, anyone using them would be able to see the contrails
more easily, but that's all.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 19:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <91b7oc-0n7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274329 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>> has. >>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>> >>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>the right truth. >>> >>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>> water vapors. >> >>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>combustion products. >> > > I await the evidence of the analysis for this. > In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will > constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. I stated no percentage of content. Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products. >>> You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable >>> evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't. >> >>Verifiable with binoculars. > > How would the use of binoculars prove contrails are actually > chemtrails? Sure, anyone using them would be able to see the contrails > more easily, but that's all. It becomes obvious where the trails are coming from, i.e. the engines. It is also obvious in air to air photographs. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 21:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <g0t2bbto5fhefuom1781edved02g6uma8q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274341 |
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>
>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>the right truth.
>>>>
>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>> water vapors.
>>>
>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>combustion products.
>>
>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>
>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Or do you mean exhaust fumes? If so, my claim remains the same,
except that it will be exhaust rather than fuel.
BTW, I notice you didn't offer evidence of the analysis for your
claim.
>I stated no percentage of content.
>
I didn't claim you did.
>Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also
>a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products.
>
Water vapor is the bulk of contrails. Anything else will
constitute a very small percentage of the total. If it equals 5%, I
would be amazed.
>>>> You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable
>>>> evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't.
>>>
>>>Verifiable with binoculars.
>>
>> How would the use of binoculars prove contrails are actually
>> chemtrails? Sure, anyone using them would be able to see the contrails
>> more easily, but that's all.
>
>It becomes obvious where the trails are coming from, i.e. the engines.
>
>It is also obvious in air to air photographs.
That doesn't answer the question I asked.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 03:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <um98oc-0qa.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274353 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>>>> has. >>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>>>> >>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>>>the right truth. >>>>> >>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>>>> water vapors. >>>> >>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>>>combustion products. >>> >>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. >>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will >>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. >> >>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. >> > > Six of one, half dozen of the other. Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. > Or do you mean exhaust fumes? If so, my claim remains the same, > except that it will be exhaust rather than fuel. > BTW, I notice you didn't offer evidence of the analysis for your > claim. > >>I stated no percentage of content. >> > > I didn't claim you did. > >>Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also >>a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products. >> > > Water vapor is the bulk of contrails. Anything else will > constitute a very small percentage of the total. If it equals 5%, I > would be amazed. Read the sentence I wrote just above yours until comprehension sets in. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 04:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <vpl3bbhi7d78v3j9kf15hk5n5q2u2e8ur5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #274357 |
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>>>the right truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>>>> water vapors.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>>>combustion products.
>>>>
>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>>>
>>>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>>
>> Six of one, half dozen of the other.
>
>Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are
>water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things.
>
Sigh.
My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very
small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails
chemtrails.
>> Or do you mean exhaust fumes? If so, my claim remains the same,
>> except that it will be exhaust rather than fuel.
>> BTW, I notice you didn't offer evidence of the analysis for your
>> claim.
>>
>>>I stated no percentage of content.
>>
>> I didn't claim you did.
>>
>>>Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also
>>>a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products.
>>
>> Water vapor is the bulk of contrails. Anything else will
>> constitute a very small percentage of the total. If it equals 5%, I
>> would be amazed.
>
>Read the sentence I wrote just above yours until comprehension sets in.
I clearly comprehend. That I would be surprised if anything other
than water composed 5% of the total doesn't mean I do not.
I'm still waiting for the analysis you use to support your
initial claim.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 18:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <7gu9oc-7rg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #274365 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>>>>>> has. >>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>>>>>the right truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>>>>>> water vapors. >>>>>> >>>>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>>>>>combustion products. >>>>> >>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. >>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will >>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. >>>> >>>>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. >>> >>> Six of one, half dozen of the other. >> >>Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are >>water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. >> > > Sigh. > My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very > small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails > chemtrails. That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious to anyone that actually knows anything about them. Chemtrails is a kook term. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 14:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <E_ssy.302238$Eo2.203864@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #274371 |
On 02/03/2016 01:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>>>>> thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>>>>> the right truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>>>>>> water vapors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>>>>> combustion products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>>>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>>>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>>>>
>>>> Six of one, half dozen of the other.
>>>
>>> Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are
>>> water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very
>> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails
>> chemtrails.
>
> That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious
> to anyone that actually knows anything about them.
>
> Chemtrails is a kook term.
>
Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them.
DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a
"kook". Got it?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy
csiph-web