-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
After 9/11, it was common for most of us to thank our firemen for the dangerous work they do. My wife's father was killed while working as a fireman. However, it is wrong to assume every person working as a fireman, or police officer, or serving in the military, is serving us honorable.
During rescue efforts at the WTC, a small group of fireman went into the underground floors to look for survivors. There were none. While down there, they helped themselves to the Rolex watches that were in a store's jewelry case. To me, they were thieves, not hero's, that particular day. The same is true of soldiers who return from Iraq, where they worked unloading cargo planes, and say they suffered from PTSD, assuming that they will receive a disability award based on the fact they were in Iraq, even though they were not near any fighting. Ladybug, who predictably "liked" your comments, and would say she fully supports all our soldiers, has made disparaging remarks against law enforcement officers with no evidence of wrong doing. When I asked her to present evidence of officers abusing citizens who were being compliant, she refused. I defend people who work in law enforcement, yet am willing to admit a few commit unlawful acts.
Do you automatically believe what you read on internet forums? Try reading a few of Spherical's posts. He lives in a fantasy world. Someone tells me they served in Vietnam, sure, I can believe them. They tell me they were sprayed with some sort of mist that may have come from a jet that suddenly appeared at treetop levels without making typical jet sounds to alert them, I begin to wonder. When they say they had a heart attack, sure, lots of people have heart attacks. I can believe them. When they say "someone" told them the heart attack was a result of agent orange, that's a stretch. Without more information, I'm skeptical. Was the heart attack 40 years after serving? Could it have been caused by a dozen different things? Yes. Who was this person offering their opinion of the cause of the heart attack? A doctor would be taken more seriously than a family member or friend, don't you agree? Don't forget you are on a conspiracy forum. People here try to link almost anything to a secret government agency trying to harm them. They rarely include any details for those claims. They never provide evidence that proves their claims. This is repeated daily. Other conspiracy believers support them because they believe almost all conspiracy theories. They don't need proof. A youtube video made in someone's basement making outrageous claims is somehow believable to them. Stick around and see for yourself.
If you believe the government narrative of the attacks of 9/11/01, this makes you an accessory to the murder of thousands of Americans. I am sure glad I don't have their blood on my hands. You should be ashamed of yourself.
If you believe the government narrative of the attacks of 9/11/01, this makes you an accessory to the murder of thousands of Americans. I am sure glad I don't have their blood on my hands. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You're not paying attention. I just explained that I do not simply believe a narrative. I view the evidence and draw my own conclusions. You, on the other hand, ignore all the evidence and believe kooks posting wild claims on youtube videos.
You are in denial about how high up in the atmosphere the wind experiments are taking place. You confused low flying airliners leaving contrails with a handful of wind experiments over a forty year period. You look at contrails and tell unknowing sheep your made up story of them being chem trails. It's no different than your beliefs about 9/11. I just bet you believe a commercial airliner did not strike the Pentagon. You probably think it was a missile. You don't have a shred of evidence. On the contrary, there are actual eye witnesses who were watching the plane fly in low and hit the Pentagon...in broad daylight. One cab driver even had his cab damaged when one of the light poles was knocked over by the planes wing seconds before impact. Plus all the commercial airliner debris and passenger remains and luggage. Plus military aircraft following and watching the plane descend and then turn and strike the Pentagon. But you'll swear it was a missile and that somehow the plane and all those passengers just vanished in thin air. Sure. That's about what we've come to expect from you.
Hi Sinnerman,
Get this. Even YOU are here on this conspiracy forum! So what am I to think of YOU?
I do know what you're saying, however. What I think is that we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt. IOW, it's better to err on the side of safety. If someone says he was a soldier in a war, I'll believe it till I know for sure it's not true. Most people are honest. I'll believe someone is sane until there is reason to believe to the contrary. I'd rather err on the side of someone lying than to ask a soldier to prove he was really in a war.
So if someone shows up here and says something - I take them at their word. Otherwise, this whole forum thing falls apart.
The way the experience was described by the poster makes it pretty obvious that it's true. That would be an artistic rendering - like in books. The jet flying just above the tree tops - it was very close to the ground, maybe not JUST above the treetops, or maybe it was. How could we know for sure? We weren't there, luckily. The mist - agent orange did look like a mist - to him it's a mist. See? It makes it be more true, not less.
And if this experience is true, why go bothering to ask all that other stuff in your last paragraph? Was the experience not enough? Soldiers lives are changed forever - not one of them comes back the same. It's necessary to wonder who declared the heart attack? What difference does it make? If it's true, it's true.
BTW, I do agree with what you said about the WTC. My brother, who is a court officer in Queens, was on a bus heading there with other volunteers for the clean up work. About two or three blocks away some of the officers had to get off the bus because they couldn't bear what they were seeing as they were getting closer to the scene of the tragedy. He stayed on but it bothered him for a long time.
So this will make up a little for the story of the Rolex watches being stolen.
BUT
How do I know you were telling me the truth? How do you know I really have a brother that lives in Queens?
See Sinnerman, we have to trust each other a little bit - until we cannot anymore.
Fran
P.S. My story is true.
Last edited:
Test the spirits. Where did I read that? People are like filthy rags. None are righteous, not one. Where did I read that. Who would say such a thing? Oh wait, God's word can't suggest that people are not mostly honest, can it? Well, yes it can. Goodness, you better send a friend to go negotiate your next car purchase. When that guy tells you he isn't making a profit selling at full retail, you can believe him if you want, but you better have a bucket full of cash with you.
What I was suggesting is that people are always offering advice, when they lack credentials to give such advice. If I told someone I served in Vietnam and that 40 years later I had a heart attack, they might say I got the heart attack because of agent orange. They have not been to medical school or know much about the war, but they read something about agent orange and offered their opinion. To me, that sort of opinion is rather meaningless. Was there ever a documented case of the U.S. military spraying agent orange on field hospitals in Vietnam? If there was, I'd like to know. That would certainly cause me to ponder the possibility. But seriously, old people have heart attacks all the time. Most of them didn't fight in Vietnam. The causes are more often linked to a poor diet and bad health.
Yes, we are both spending time on a conspiracy forum. I'm here to push back against people spreading untruths and countering them with evidence that shows they are being misled. Let me ask you, do you take Spherical at his word? Wouldn't you agree there is sufficient evidence he is disturbed and in need of medical help?
If this site falls apart because there is a basic level of accountability, then so be it. There is nothing wrong asking for evidence of a claim. An honest person will always want to provide such evidence.
What I was suggesting is that people are always offering advice, when they lack credentials to give such advice. If I told someone I served in Vietnam and that 40 years later I had a heart attack, they might say I got the heart attack because of agent orange. They have not been to medical school or know much about the war, but they read something about agent orange and offered their opinion. To me, that sort of opinion is rather meaningless. Was there ever a documented case of the U.S. military spraying agent orange on field hospitals in Vietnam? If there was, I'd like to know. That would certainly cause me to ponder the possibility. But seriously, old people have heart attacks all the time. Most of them didn't fight in Vietnam. The causes are more often linked to a poor diet and bad health.
Yes, we are both spending time on a conspiracy forum. I'm here to push back against people spreading untruths and countering them with evidence that shows they are being misled. Let me ask you, do you take Spherical at his word? Wouldn't you agree there is sufficient evidence he is disturbed and in need of medical help?
If this site falls apart because there is a basic level of accountability, then so be it. There is nothing wrong asking for evidence of a claim. An honest person will always want to provide such evidence.
B
Bigbruce
Guest
Back in 1995 I was over seeing the irrigation of 54 holes 400 acers of the best golf coarses in Florida.
More than any of you I've spent a life time looking up at the sky. Everything I did 365 days aweek depended apon weather.
I had heard of chemtrails. And laughed too. Then one day I saw them. From clear skys to 100% cloud cover. ( from clear to tictac toe grids to complete cloud cover )
I've done my own into research. Read peoples books and been to countless websites.
I've seen the same type of small silver-white jets lined up on the main runway of Tyndell AF base.
The one thing I know for sure is that chemtrails are very real. And can be used to trap heat and warm the earth or reflect heat and cool it.
Edward Teller from lawrence livermore labratory made this disovery. He died s few years ago.
Re: jerry e. Smiths book weather warfare, the military's plan to recruit mother nature.
Jerry die a couple years ago but left us a sane none tinfoil hat book to read.
Presuption is sin, but do you care?
More than any of you I've spent a life time looking up at the sky. Everything I did 365 days aweek depended apon weather.
I had heard of chemtrails. And laughed too. Then one day I saw them. From clear skys to 100% cloud cover. ( from clear to tictac toe grids to complete cloud cover )
I've done my own into research. Read peoples books and been to countless websites.
I've seen the same type of small silver-white jets lined up on the main runway of Tyndell AF base.
The one thing I know for sure is that chemtrails are very real. And can be used to trap heat and warm the earth or reflect heat and cool it.
Edward Teller from lawrence livermore labratory made this disovery. He died s few years ago.
Re: jerry e. Smiths book weather warfare, the military's plan to recruit mother nature.
Jerry die a couple years ago but left us a sane none tinfoil hat book to read.
Presuption is sin, but do you care?
B
BeyondET
Guest
Good post cool you worked at a golf course man that sounds like fun then again I like to play so that is only in my view surely working on the coarse and playing the coarse are two different experiences.
My opinion is chem trials are just another added pollutant , when the coral of the sea become extinct everything will follow. though the coral dying off would hardly be the destruction of society society will be its own demise.
Wow! Big Bruce, you need to take a few minutes and read all the posts from the beginning. You are confused by the words chem trails and contrails. Contrails are what comes from planes flying across the skies. It is condensation. It is harmless. Chem Trails are not visible to the human eye and were released decades ago from rockets flying up to a million feet above the earth, as a way to study wind currents in the upper atmosphere. They are also harmless. Read, learn, understand.
Furthermore, your writing makes me wonder why you say the things you say. Looking up and seeing grids of contrails has never resulted in 100% cover of the sky. Never. Not even close. Don't use words to describe something that has never happened. It makes everything else you write also seem embellished.
What do planes lining up on a runway have to do with anything? I would expect planes to land and take off from an Air Force Base, wouldn't you? Planes do not fly high enough to have been used on the upper wind current studies done in the past. You need to quit fixating on planes and on what you see coming off of them. Those are contrails. There is nothing being discharged from commercial or military airplanes. Again, chem trails were harmless and chemicals (invisible to the human eye) once used in past decades to study wind currents at very high elevations (200,000 feet to 1,000,000,000 feet above the earth).
The one thing you don't seem to know for sure is that contrails are not chem trails. Do more reading. Here's a clue. If Ladybug tags your post with a like, it means you are miles off topic and are posting something untrue. That's how you can know for sure.
Since I haven't tagged his post with a like, must be what he says is true. LMBO..
Actually, what makes something true is when it is true, not when you forget to "like" it. The sooner people viewing and commenting on this thread come to understand that what they see in the sky behind commercial and military aircraft is harmless contrails of condensation, the fewer of them will be misled into believing some nonsensical conspiracy theory. I'm choosing to contribute truthful information that will help them discern what it is they see, and to know it is harmless. That way they can withstand the onslaught of false information being spread throughout this forum. You go on being a stumbling block if you like.
B
Bigbruce
Guest
Well I gave researchable researchable evidence the from a phd scientist and 350.page book with the author. I gave my background. You gave me ( us ) pig farts.
Your cretability is zero. Jets average altitude is 32,000 ft
Condensation trails happen in low temperatures ex 40 below.
You must do your research on the Wikipedia. And research this wikapedia was.started by a pornographer . Sad but true.
I' m new to this forum. But old to research. I do not care about popularity. I care about truth. God will.hold me accountable for what I type.
Your cretability is zero. Jets average altitude is 32,000 ft
Condensation trails happen in low temperatures ex 40 below.
You must do your research on the Wikipedia. And research this wikapedia was.started by a pornographer . Sad but true.
I' m new to this forum. But old to research. I do not care about popularity. I care about truth. God will.hold me accountable for what I type.
Other than the fact you write like a third grader, you seem sincere. But then so do the conspiracy kooks on this forum. But I'll gladly invest time and energy to discuss and debate this topic with you, if you like. Or, in anticipation of learning you are being misled, you wish to make a typical conspiracy statement like; I don't want to discuss this further or provide evidence because it is a waste of my time, then I'll let you go on your way.
So far, you are telling my an entire sky was covered by contrails or chem trails above a golf course in Florida. Is that correct? And, of course you took a picture of this 100% cloud cover created by aircraft, right? Care to share the evidence of this phenomenon?
You are also saying that contrails cannot be seen from behind commercial and military aircraft flying at 32,000 feet. Correct? Did you watch the video of the OP where it was stated that chem trails are not visible to the human eye and require special cameras? Also, that the chemicals they released decades ago were in the ionosphere, some 200,000 feet up to 1,000,000 feet above the earth. You watched that, right?
Post some links to your evidence and I'll do some research and post links to it. Let's see where this goes.
I'm headed to a party. I'll catch up in a day or two.
OK, I'm watching the NBA playoffs, but have a couple minutes. Big Bruce, what did you mean when you said the skies went from clear to 100% cloud cover? I've seen clouds roll in and make for cloudy skies. You seem to be suggesting these were clouds made entirely out of contrails from airplanes. If so, that seems to be a wild exaggeration.
When conspiracy folks say they have done their research, it almost always means they have spent a lot of time on conspiracy web sites and are willing to accept everything they say. That isn't research. That's taking someone's word for something, usually without evidence or proof.
Please explain what jets taking off at an air force base has to do with this discussion.
Q: Where do contrails form?
A: Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude. (Exceptions occur in places like Alaska and Canada, where very cold air is sometimes found near the ground.) Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not people who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.) You can use an Appleman chart to predict contrail formation for your area. Of course, a contrail cannot form if no airplane passes through.
Contrail Education - FAQ
The above explanation states that contrails usually form at altitudes above 26,000 feet. You stated they can't form at that altitude, didn't you? Are you willing to now state that contrails can and do form at altitudes of 26,000 feet? They even form at much lower altitudes when cold air is found near the ground. So well under 20,000 feet. Contrails formed behind WWII bombers. They were flying under 20,000 feet.
What else do we need to discuss here? I think if you are willing to agree that contrails are condensation formed behind civilian aircraft and military aircraft at altitudes from under 20,000 feet and above, you will then begin to understand they are also harmless and not part of some government conspiracy. Commercial airliners coming and going from commercial airports can hardly be part of a government conspiracy. Agreed?
One last thing. Below the explanation of where contrails are formed, is a link to the article it came from. If you choose to carry on a debate on this topic, please post links to the locations you are getting your information from.
B
BeyondET
Guest
your right about contrails what it looks like a condensed cloud of chems, jet engines burn JP5 no matter at what altitude it's spewed out as jet fuel exhaust it isn't clean by no means. it's a pollutant exhaust of burning fossil fuels from car,factory's,airplanes etc.. Technology is getting better still a ways to go.. jet exhaust is quite dirty live in the practice flight path of a jet airbase or near a commercial airport runway the black soot isnt hard not to see on the roof of the house or the outdoor furniture.
Last edited:
S
Speedofsound
Guest
B
BeyondET
Guest
haha right,, I guess sometimes its better than reading responding to the ten verse pointing post, how if you don't have your life perfect your going to burn in the lake of fire..
Can you take a picture of the black soot on the roof and on the outdoor furniture? Saying things on the internet is easy. Showing evidence of claims tends to cause people to make excuses why they can't or won't provide evidence they say exists. We may be waiting on Big Bruce to provide evidence and to clarify his previous remarks for a long time.
B
BeyondET
Guest
Well I don't live near the airbase anymore but I'm not making this up I had to clean it up each year, JP5 doesn't burn clean this statement below is from the news. nationalgeographic.com the photo is of a plane taking off you can see the dirty exhaust spewing out.
In recent years, airplane crashes have killed about a thousand people annually, whereas plane emissions kill about ten thousand people each year, researchers say.
Earlier studies had assumed that people were harmed only by the emissions from planes while taking off and landing. The new research is the first to give a comprehensive estimate of the number of premature deaths from all airline emissions.
"We found that unregulated emissions from [planes flying] above 3,000 feet [914 meters] were responsible for most of the deaths," said study leader Steven Barrett, an aeronautical engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
Airplane exhaust, like car exhaust, contains a variety of air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
(Related: "Pollution Can Change Your DNA in 3 Days, Study Suggests.")
Many of these particles of pollution are tiny, about a hundred millionths of an inch wide, or smaller than the width of a human hair.
So-called particulate matter that's especially small is the main culprit in human health effects, especially since the particulates can become wedged deep in the lung and possibly enter the bloodstream, scientists say.
Barrett and colleagues used a computer model that brought together records of flight paths, the average amount of fuel burned during flights, and their estimated emissions.
The computer model, based on experimental data, has been shown to accurately capture pollution's movement in the atmosphere as well as intercontinental transport of pollution, especially from Asia to North America, Barrett said.
By comparing this data with another atmospheric model, the team was able to track how plane pollutants are likely to move and where the pollutants are most likely to fall to the surface, where people breathe them in.
The study also looked at how human populations are spread around the planet to estimate how the patterns of airplane pollution might up the risk of death. (Test your knowledge of toxic disasters.)
Globally, the team estimated that about 8,000 deaths a year result from pollution from planes at cruising altitude—about 35,000 feet (10,668 meters)—whereas about 2,000 deaths result from pollution emitted during takeoffs and landings.
The most common causes of death due to air pollution are cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer, according to the UN's World Health Organization
The locations with the most active airports aren't always the ones that suffer the biggest health impacts, the study suggests.
When a plane flies at cruising altitude above the clouds, wind currents can whisk the pollution far away so that prevailing winds cause the pollution to fall from the sky about 6,000 miles (10,000 kilometers) to the east of the plane's route.
(Also see "Pollution From U.S., Europe, Others Speeding Arctic Warming, Study Says.")
The United States incurs about 450 deaths each year from airplane emissions—only about one-seventh the number of deaths that would be expected if the pollution fell straight to the ground from planes, the study said.
In India, on the other hand, there are an estimated 1,640 deaths per year from airplane emissions—about seven times more deaths than would be expected based on the number of flights that start or finish in the country.
Most of these deaths are caused not by flights over India but from emissions in Europe and North America at high altitude, which then blow across Asia, according to the study, published in the October issue of Environmental Science &
Airplane pollution deaths still represent a small share of the toll from all kinds of air pollution.
Emissions from ships, for instance, kill an estimated 60,000 people a year, according to a 2007 study also published in Environmental Science & Technology.
And the annual total death toll from air pollution is about a million, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.
However, Barrett said, "aviation is growing fast, so we need to start now" on curbing the death rate.
Sulfur in jet fuel is a major killer, but for a small additional cost "on the order of [U.S.] five cents a gallon, you can remove the vast majority of the sulfur," he said.
Junfeng Liu, an atmospheric chemist at Princeton University, said the "excellent" study delves into "an important global environmental policy issue."
Airplane-pollution deaths account for about a tenth of all air-pollution deaths with cross-border causes, Liu said. So airplane pollution could be an important focus for environmental regulations in the future.
Indeed the findings may someday influence U.S. policy, according to Lourdes Maurice, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's chief scientific and technical adviser for environment.
If the findings hold up during future studies, then the aviation agency will consider how to regulate airplane emissions to cut their health impact,