Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Closed-Minded Debunker and Debunker in Chemmie Clothes


Closed-Minded Debunker and Debunker in Chemmie Clothes

Unread postby bryansail33 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:10 am

{on edit- stop hitting that return button so much Bryan, or I will ban you for that. I will fix the problem once again. Neither of you, if you are indeed different people, are going to be permitted to **** on this forum. :twisted: }

Let's try the unimaginable, lets get a university to test a fresh trail. A few hundred bucks is about all I can spare, but if we get a few hundred more people to toss in some money (I'm sure someone can donate more than I can)... Lets be about it not just talk about it. I think we can do better than speculate. My guess is we do find barium and aluminum provided we pick the right airplane lol. I'd suggest a USAF plane that we have taken time to monitor it's route and it's dripping spreading cirrus forming trails ahead of time. We better be very careful to qualify the lab that does the testing ahead of time too.

A whole lot can go wrong here, but if we get it right..... lol we'll be dead or paid handsomely to go away. ...of course none of us would accept a bribe....or cave in to our families lives being threatened RIGHT?!?!?!?

{on second edit- There is no threat whatsoever to writing on message boards. This is a concern troll at work.}

Closed-Minded Debunker and Debunker in Chemmie Clothes

Unread postby bryansail33 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:50 am

{on edit: Hey, here's an idea. Since you and your buddy foolsbane disagree on chemtrails versus contrails, why not go to Chemtrail Central and debate there?

I have also put in large bold, where you have outright lied about this forum censoring or pruning your posts. I am very close to shutting you off right now. Watch that, *******.

I now see where you have completely crossed the line. F*%^ you. You're finished. You're a nasty person.}

Socrates and Lophofo,
I think when you stick to the evidence of HAARP, military testing, testing of aluminum and barium (search the storming media website) you do good work for advancing chemtrail theory.

When you bash dissenters while becoming illogically angry and call them shills, liers(wow) and trolls you lose your momentum. That you don't see that is sad. How does it benefit your forum when you don't post my comments or just post portions of my comments? How does it benefit this forum when you lash out illogically and pine for the days when there is only one viewpoint? How much fun is it to proselytize to those who don't know about contrails existing for 24 hours and more long before any patents for barium and aluminum existed? Your forum has no room for more than one viewpoint? What kind of a nazi vision is that ? What other kind of twisted world viewpoints do you have? -never mind don't really want to know.

In 1996 the aviation standard of the FAA for good visibility was changed from 40 miles to 10 miles. I still can't fully digest the sudden massive change in that standard and I think that militarizing the atmosphere is very likely involved as there are hundreds of documents that admit to atmospheric moderation from the 80's right up to the present.

In the meantime I'm going to find a forum that is dynamic and open, where the moderator understands that dissent is good or advancement of understanding the truth of an issue. This forum is a failed venture primarily because you vastly over-simplify contrail behavior and only want blind acceptance of your bulletpoints.

The best forums are full of varied viewpoints and you Socrates have proven ill equipped to deal head on with this issue. You do have records of skies like the 1983 photo that you can find and verify for yourself, it shouldn't scare you so much to do so.

You can look for my comments at a forum interested in truth and a forum that accepts that this issue is not as simple as pointing to the sky and yelling " look ! We are being sprayed again!" Good luck in hosting a forum that only wants half-wits and one half of the story.

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby Guest » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:59 am

{on edit: This guy is schizo with his view. One minute he is saying chemtrails are real, the next he is saying they are contrails. Also, why didn't he debate any with foolsbane? Let the reader decide.}

Hi Socrates,

How's it going with trying to keep the chemtrail theory as simple as looking to the sky and yelling "LOOOOooookkkk, They are spraying us againnnn!!!" ? Do you even take time to read articles like the one from 1970, linked above by foolsbane? In that article it mentions a single contrail fanning out and covering the entire sky. That study along with others should at least make you realize you can't discern a chemtrail just by looking. If you don't modify your viewpoint of chemtrails, it is you that is a liar as you have posted about pointing to the sky and telling newbies that they are being sprayed because there is a persisting contrail. The trail you point to MAY be a chemtrail. This doesn't negate elevated environmental barium and aluminum, or HAARP applications for atmospheric intervention but your simple chemtrail determination methodology is rubbish and casts a dark shadow over all of your claims.

You rant against people almost violently because they do not ascribe themselves to your exact understanding of the subject matter yet you clearly don't show ability to grasp how contrail and chemtrail behavior is often identical. To any one with half a brain that views your comments, it quickly becomes clear that your own 'filter' limits your seeing this issue honestly. Contrails behave like chemtrails. Admit that or you are the one who is the liar. Your whole website becomes a mass dis-info. campaign simply because you keep screwing this part up.

Give one example of foolsbane lying to us all, just one. I would recommend against in-lining his comments since you ignore about 90% of the content in his links about contrail behavior. This resorting to name calling and bashing shows that you are prone to your own very special type of distortion and lying. This is apparent to anyone who comes here and reads the comments. I'm actually a bit embarrassed for you when I read the way you handle his links to data points. If I were a black ops guy involved in chemtrailing your forum would require no participation as you have effectively mis-informed all on your own.

Re: Aerosol Report

Unread postby Guest » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:21 pm

socrates wrote, "How come debunkers can't provide proof that chemtrails are contrails. They keep going around in circles. The two links above have nothing to do with chemtrails."

Scientists have proven that contrails can and do persist and morph into cirrus clouds...they even induce cirrus clouds where none were there before...did you actually read any of the papers??

"This guy is piling on the spam. Why couldn't he snip the parts where they say which aircraft emissions turned into what sized cloud cover and for how long. "

Scientific research, peer reviewed and tested is not spam. Because it does not fit your pre-conceived notion of what should be...you deride it and dismiss it...a closed minded debunker if there ever was one.

You want "snips" fine:

"About one half of the study contrails were generated by the sampling aircraft, a Cessna Citation, primarily at times of 3-15 min after generation"

from here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1834780

or this:

"The impact of sulfur oxides on particle formation and contrails is investigated in the exhaust plumes of a twin-engine jet aircraft. Different fuels were used with sulfur mass fractions of 170 and 5500 ppm in the fuel, one lower than average, the other above the specification limit of standard Jet-A1 fuel. During various phases of the same flight, the two engines burnt either high- or low-sulfur fuel or different fuels in the two engines. Besides visual, photographic, and video observations from close distance, in situ measurements were made within the plumes at plume ages of 20 to 30 s, at altitudes between 9 and 9.5 km, and temperatures between -49 and -55°C, when the visible contrail was about 2 km long. The data include particle number densities for particles larger than 7 nm, 18 nm, 120 nm, and 1 μm in diameter, together with wind, temperature and humidity measurements. The observations show visible and measurable differences between contrails caused by the different sulfur levels. At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content. The higher sulfur emission caused a larger optical thickness of the contrail shortly after onset, with slightly brown-colored contrail when the Sun was behind the observer, and more contrast when viewed against the Sun. The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail. At plume ages of about 20 s, each engine plume was diluted to an effective diameter of 20 m. The plumes contained many subvisible particles. Peak number densities were 30,000 cm-3 for particles of diameter above 7 nm and 15,000 cm-3 above 18 nm. The latter is a little larger than the estimated number of soot particles emitted. The high-sulfur plume shows more particles than the low-sulfur plume. The differences are about 25% for particles above 7 nm and about 50% above 18 nm. The results indicate that part of the fuel sulfur is converted to sulfuric acid which nucleates with water vapor heterogeneously on soot or nucleates acid droplets homogeneously which then coagulate partly with soot. During descent through the level of contrail onset, the high-sulfur contrail remained visible at slightly lower altitude (25 to 50 m) or higher temperature (0.2 to 0.4 K). At least for average to high sulfur contents, aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular in regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause."

from here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3039674

or this one which specifically links particular persistent contrails to commercial air traffic:


"Widespread persistent contrails over the western Great Lakes during 9 October 2000 were examined using commercial flight data, coincident meteorological data, and satellite remote sensing data from several platforms. The data were analyzed to determine the atmospheric conditions under which the contrails formed and to measure several physical properties of the contrails, including areal coverage, spreading rates, fall speeds, and optical properties. Most of the contrails were located between 10.6 and 11.8 km in atmospheric conditions consistent with a modified form of the Appleman contrail formation theory. However, the Rapid Update Cycle-2 analyses have a dry bias in the upper-tropospheric relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI), as indicated by persistent contrail generation during the outbreak where RHI ≥ 85%. The model analyses show that synoptic-scale vertical velocities affect the formation of persistent contrails. Areal coverage by linear contrails peaked at 30 000 km2, but the maximum contrail-generated cirrus coverage was over twice as large. Contrail spreading rates averaged around 2.7 km h-1, and the contrails were visible in the 4-km Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imagery approximately 1 h after formation. Contrail fall speed estimates were between 0.00 and 0.045 m s-1 based on observed contrail advection rates. Optical depth measurements ranged from 0.1 to 0.6, with consistent differences between remote sensing methods. Contrail formation density was roughly correlated with air traffic density after the effects of competing cloud coverage, humidity, and vertical velocity were considered. Improved tropospheric humidity measurements are needed for realistic simulations of contrail and cirrus development."


or this:

"We have reanalyzed some of the best in-situ contrail data collected to date to explore how well
Eq. (3) predicts observations of the IWC within contrails. Some of the most reliable observations
come from the 12 May 1996 SUCCESS case study when the DC-8 generated a contrail while flying
in a racetrack pattern in highly ice supersaturated, cloud-free air (Heymsfield et al., 1998). Some 20
and 40 minutes after the initial contrail pass the DC-8 returned through the contrail, sampling it in a
racetrack pattern. These penetrations occurred long after the times required for the wake vortices to
develop oscillations that mixed the contrail plume with the environmental air, i.e. these samples can
be considered as taken from the later stage of contrail evolution. The DC-8 then sampled the
contrail particles as they grew in the ice supersaturated air (as ascertained from a TDL hygrometer)
for almost two hours following contrail formation. The accuracy of the TDL hygrometer was
established to be +/-5% based on contrail crossings and wave cloud penetrations at temperatures
between -40 and -65C."

from this paper: http://tinyurl.com/42wjzu

"Persistent contrails are a common feature of the upper troposphere. We describe two methods for intercomparing and evaluating RHi measurements in a persistent contrail with calculated or expected values. The methods were applied to measurements made in the upper troposphere on board an NASA WB-57F aircraft while sampling its own contrail. Included in the analysis are measurements of water vapor pressure, temperature, ice particle number and size, and nitric oxide (NO). The systematic use of these contrail-sampling methods in future studies will improve our understanding of contrail microphysics and the performance of fast-response water and temperature measurements."

take from here: http://tinyurl.com/3u92fe

What do you make of this quote: "Bryson and Wendland (1975) estimated that contrails may have increased the cirrus cloud cover over North America by 5%–10% since the early 1960s; their calculations assumed that 50% of all flights produce contrails that persist for at least 2 hours"

from here: http://tinyurl.com/66qouz

Or this one which follows specific contrails for over 2 hours:


This one isn't sampling contrails but it is measuring aerosols in aircraft exhaust:


Socrates...Please clarify your belief of contrails....is any trail that persists a "chemtrail" ...or is it that some contrails persist but "chemtrails" only come from military airplanes...

Surely, the overwhelming body of research regarding contrails persisting should give you and understanding that even "normal" contrails can and do persist.

"Of course chemtrails are going to take advantage of higher humidity/temperature situations. But the fact that they have chemtrailed into pure blue sky and very warm conditions is proof that chemtrails are not contrails. All these debunker points have been defeated all over the top two sections. These are time wasters and evokers of authority. I really believe it's time for them to go, at least foolsbreath. "

First off, conditions on the ground have NO bearing on conditions aloft...if its 100 degrees on the ground it can still -40 at 35K feet. Moreover, ice supersaturation often occurs in CLEAR AIR...That is why persistent contrail are causing such a concern because they create their own...and additional- cirrus clouds where there were none before.

"As I told may41970, you are not wanted here. Those who spread willing disinfo get permanently banned."

If you think the large body of scientific evidence regarding persistent contrail and contrail cirrus is disinfo...well, I can't help you with that...That is not the talk of an open-mind.

Good luck with that.

Closed-Minded Debunker and Debunker in Chemmie Clothes

Unread postby Foolsbane » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:24 pm

sorry...forgot to sigh my name to my last post...but I am sure you know it is me :)

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby Foolsbane » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:38 pm


first of all- the Appleman chart is a guide...not an absolute...and if you review the literature you will see a lot of examples of persistent contrails that fall outside the parameters of that guide.

Secondly, a guy setting out a jar on the hood of his car not only "sounds" unscientific but IT IS UNSCIENTIFIC...to infer that any contents within that jar came from a contrail...is pure speculation at best and a leap of faith at worst....Any material could have easily and in fact more likely came from the his own backyard...or the plant down the street...It is in no way indication that anything came from a contrail...

Moreover, the specific case in Arkansas was exposed as being erroneously reported- the results of barium levels were in actuality nothing near what was incorrectly stated by the reporter and well within safe amounts...

Can you please provide sources and references to the elevated cases of Barium? What do they believe the sources are?

I feel bad that you feel I mean because I do not believe in "chemtrail"- that must make it hard for you...I have not spread any stereotypes...only questioned your beliefs and provided proof for mine. Are you so close minded that you are unable to rationally discourse??

Did any of you read this paper from 1970??: Do you have any thoughts as to its contents?????


Socrat, you still have not addressed what your understanding of contrail behavior is??

New Debunker Bin

Unread postby socrates » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:59 pm

The debunker posts have been moved to one thread in the Everything Else section.

Sincere debunkers are welcomed to join as regular members. But they are going to have to be extra nice and play exceptionally fair. These two are old-school disinfo. I could spell it out. Foolsbane gives it away. He signed his name off once with three dots. That's how Cydoniaquest used to post. Cydoniaquest is tied in with Yaak/Ed Snell. The whole thing has been scripted. They don't like the fact that this forum fully exposed all the nonsense. They can try to portray me as paranoid or try to drive me mad, but it will never work.
User avatar
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: New Debunker Bin

Unread postby Foolsbane... » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:02 pm

{on edit: You've had every opportunity to post in the top section. It's time for you to wrap things up. You can post for a few more days or so, subject to change at any time, on the one specific thread. After which that thread will be locked. If you want to take this as a victory, so be it. The closed-minded debunker versus crazy believer script has been exposed. Get your kicks in now, because after this, all your posts will be deleted. No one is going to come on this forum and outright lie like you have done. This global announcement will eventually be merged into the Closed-minded Debunker and a Debunker in Chemmie Clothes thread.

The three dots were very telling, along with all your assorted head games on display.}

{on second edit: Based on the outright lying, i.e. trolling, Bryan/follsbane/yaak/cydoniaquest has been permanently banned. None of their posts were ever touched or deleted. This guy is an outright liar and disinfo scum.}

...these three dots...determine who I am...???

You are a real brainiac...

I do not portray you paranoid or drive you mad....you do that all by yourself...

So...since you continually avoided the issue earlier...perhaps you will be so kind as to address the issue here...

What is your understanding to the nature of contrails and their ability to persist??

Btw- I noticed how everyone else- on both sides of the issue- at Debate Both Sides concluded that you were fairly loony...

Is there anyone who is not a paid troll/shill/etc....???


Re: New Debunker Bin

Unread postby Foolsbane.>. » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:04 pm

I noticed how you didn't have the courage to post my last comment on the Aerosol thread....

Your mind truly is closed shut, isn't it?


Re: Closed-Minded Debunker and Debunker in Chemmie Clothes

Unread postby Isard » Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:15 am

Hi Foolsbane,

I have seen many times with my own eyes, two aircraft flying at quite same altitude (i agree this is difficult to affirm from the ground), one of them leaving a trail and the other one absolutely nothing. Same day, same sky, same temperature, same humidity.

So how is that explained?

User avatar
truth warrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Uruguay


Return to Everything Else

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests