See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Video Shot by Pilot Flying Along side several Chemtrail Planes
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 13, 2010
Author: kevin604bc
Post Date: 2010-03-13 16:18:34 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 22409
Comments: 715
.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: randge (#2)
I really don't know how to argue with that, except that it's not condensation. I've seen them many times too in the last 10+ years.
How do you know that?
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible. I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course.
Back when I was a kid I was always checking out jets in the sky leaving contrails, and have seen MANY of them when I was stationed at an air base back in the late 70's. Chemtrails are NOT contrails, and only started appearing in the early to mid 90's or so, from what I've seen of them at least.
Yep, I wasn't sure if it was early, mid, or late 90's, but I'd say mid 90's is probably the best guess as when they first started to appear.
Stay away from the government or 'debunker' sites, they're lying. You can trust the whacko, lefty, kook, conspiracy fringe sites, they're telling the truth. ;-)
Results 1 - 10 of about 106,000 for persistent contrails Results 1 - 10 of about 427,000 for contrail cirrus
Please refer to post #9. FL, I have a seven month old baby and the wife's pregnant again and is perpetually hungry and I have to go to work to make money to buy food. I'm passing the torch to you ;-)
how much space does a gallon's worth of water vapor occupy at 40,000 feet? how much kerosene does a 747 burn in an hour? how many tons of water vapor does a 747 create in an hour?
I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course. I was interested in planes and aeronautics from the time I was in diapers, and as well my father was pilot. Because of that I used to look at the contrails when I was a kid 30-40 years ago and was always disappointed when they were not visible. You see the air conditions have to be just right and the plane at the right altitude for them to form. A standard contrail forming from natural physical processes has only a short persistence - maybe 20 minutes - 30 tops. The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail. A standard contrail is formed from water vapor and temperature and as such quickly dissipates with temperature and time. A Chemtrail by contrast has the characteristic of persistence i.e., they will persist well beyond the 20 to 30 minutes of a standard contrail and will spread to create a thin haze. When they are really busy at it I have seen them horizon to horizon counting a minimum of 13 Chemtrails. For an uncommon phenomenon, contrails, that is rather phenomenal. Here is a website where the phenomena is thoroughly documented and explored: Clifford Carnicom
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
how do you tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails"?
Do you think we are just stupid or crazy, and don't know basic science? Many of us have lived long enough to remember a time when jets used to leave standard contrails, in fact, MOST jets still do form standard contrails under the right conditions. What people call CHEMTRAILS for the most part are NOT contrails, especially when you see several jets flying at opposing angles, criss-crossing each other's paths, turning around 180 degrees and leaving another patch, and going back and forth for 30 minutes or more.
so you cant tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails" unless... what? you go up and take samples directly from the contrail?
A standard contrail looks more vaporous to begin with and as you watch the plane move across the sky you will see the trail disappearing before it makes the full circuit horizon to horizon. Only very rarely will a contrail aid in the formation of a clouds of any kind - generally they just rapidly fade. I would suggest that the "Contrail Cirrus" is a term inserted into the debate as disinformation to attempt to discredit the observers who have been blowing the whistle on Chemtrails. You will find very little if anything about "Contrail Cirrus" prior to the advent of people noticing the existence of Chemtrails. "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
here's a high altitude IFR enroute chart of federal airways. these are the "highways in the sky" designated by the government, but airplanes do not necessarily fly on them, especially now that GPS and other nav systems are aboard most commercial aircraft. you can tell the controllers where you want to go, and, depending on the traffic, you might be able to go direct, and ignore the airways... which accounts for the criss-crossing.
Another point not mentioned in the quote is that Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail (temperature decreases with altitude as the atmosphere is thinner and does not hold heat). Chemtrails are often laid down at the 10,000 foot level which is well below the 33,000 foot level which the Airforce states as the minimum formation altititude.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
if winds aloft are 100 mph, and two planes, flying crosswind on the same heading, cross through the exact same airspace at 15 minute intervals, what's gonna happen to their contrails? how many miles will their contrails be apart... hint: what's 100 divided by four?
oh. have you been up there to make first-hand observations, or are you merely quoting some loony-tunes "chemtrail" site?
You think I don't know the difference between normal air traffic and something that isn't normal? I don't live in Kansas where air lanes might criss cross, if that's what you're thinking. Try to accept the fact that some people ARE perhaps a bit more observant than yourself and do notice things that aren't normal.
how many gallons of "chemtrail" substance, whatever that substance is supposed to be, would be required to leave a visible "chemtrail" a hundred miles long...? especially in view of the fact that 747 air tankers with a load of 24,000 gallons can only drop a swath 5 miles long?
are you a professional pilot operating aircraft at altitudes at which contrails can form? are airplanes required to stop at every major airport they pass? or might they overfly them?
I think it should be, at this point, apparent to a neutral observer that it is your intent to argue the disinformation line rather than to review the data and see what conclusion the actual observations lead to. Whenever I see some attempt to argue by use of Loaded Words such as "loony-tunes" to characterize something without examining the evidence or providing any logical justification I immediatelly call Bullshit. BULLSHIT! Examples: "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
especially in view of the fact that 747 air tankers with a load of 24,000 gallons can only drop a swath 5 miles long? Hmmm? The further we go the more disinformation tactics you display: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?' Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)? 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
in other words, you cant defend your logic, so you have to veer off into a discussion of semantics. not good
No, it is called L-O-G-I-C or otherwise known as sound reasoning. If one applies the Scientific Method then one forms a conclusion based upon evidence. Photographs are evidence. Known physical properties of contrails is evidence. Characterizations i.e., "loaded words" is NOT evidence. Therefore your argument founders on the unsoundness of the attempts to divert from the issues, avoidance of the evidence, and the use of negative language as a tool to persuade by applying a negative label. All of the foregoing methods you have used are known, and categorized, under a term in use for well over 100 years i.e., Logical Fallacies and the newer term invented to describe government, and PR Agency, tactics of seeding knowingly false data and false arguments i.e., disinformation.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
You don't need to be a professional pilot to know that contrails are formed by hot exhaust gas from jet engines hitting cold moist air. You don't need to be a professional pilot to know they don't form out of the planes ailerons ... Do you think you need to be a professional meterologist to know when it's raining outside?
Perhaps to you this is normal air traffic... Good photo and valid point. Contrails form from the Jet's exhaust and from the water vapor in the exhaust, and ONLY under specific conditions. Under no conditions do they form from the ailerons.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
...of contrails... unless "chemtrails" have been photoshopped into the picture. you've been unable to refute logical explanations of how supposed "chemtrail" patterns can occur as the result of normal air traffic. you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles. you're unable to point to "chemtrail" support infrastructure that would be necessary to mount your "chemtrail" operation.
perhaps you've never been in a holding pattern at altitude to conserve fuel before you commenced your approach. perhaps you've never been instructed by ATC to "do a left 360 for spacing"
BTW, one other aspect of chemtrails are the clouds they form. I've seen bright greenish and reddish hues in those clouds first hand, similar to the image below... perhaps you've never heard of "time on station" and have never observed fighter bombers loitering until the FACs came up with a target for them.
Planes don't fly high enough in a holding pattern to leave contrails, for one. For two, it's apparent from the image that the plane that left that trail was in a fairly tight 360 degree turn, whereas an actual holding pattern would result in a much shallower turn spread out over many miles around a metropolitan area.
oh. rainbows are evidence that god was doing "chemtrails" thousands of years ago, huh?
how do you know that? are you a professional pilot?
Some people wouldn't believe it if you actually flew them close enough to the sprayer to see it first hand and up close, they'd still find a way to deny it. Anything that changes a person's world view is hard for them to accept, whether it be evidence of the impossibility of the official 9/11 legend, or chemtrails.
You don't need to be a pilot to understand science.
...of contrails... unless "chemtrails" have been photoshopped into the picture. you've been unable to refute logical explanations of how supposed "chemtrail" patterns can occur as the result of normal air traffic. you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles. you're unable to point to "chemtrail" support infrastructure that would be necessary to mount your "chemtrail" operation. Again you resort to false logic in an attempt to divert from the subject. A. It is not necessary to prove the entire question to observe that something unusual is happening which is contrary to known information. B. Who said anything about chemical fire retardent. As far as I can tell the Chemtrails are not a firefighting phenomena so it is an unknown as to how much of the formula is required to produce the trails. And we do not need to know that to observe that they do in fact exist and occur under circumstances, and at altitudes, which would ordinarily NOT form contrails. C. And your third point is again unnecessary to answer to be able to observe that something unusual is happening. At this point all you have produced are disinformation tactics and attempted diversions sprinkled with logical fallacies. You are a shill. Whom do you work for?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I'm talking about oily multicolored shades in clouds formed by chemtrails, not rainbows smartass.
are we to assume that you have flown close enough to the sprayer to see it first hand? can you provide proof of the sprayer's existence, along with evidence of the infrastructure that would be needed to support this "chemtrail" project?
here's a question for the two of you... what percentage of observed contrails are actually "chemtrails"?
Comments (45 - 715) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThere is nothing in the volume or color of the visible gases that is unusual in these trails. I've seen them many times aloft and from the ground.
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#5. To: wudidiz (#4)
#6. To: randge (#5)
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#7. To: randge (#2)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#8. To: wudidiz (#6)
There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#9. To: randge (#6)
research it on the Internet
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#10. To: wudidiz (#6)
physically impossible
#11. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker (#10)
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#12. To: wudidiz (#6)
There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation.
The chemical reaction of the combustion process produces water vapor. For kerosene, the water vapor produced is just over one gallon of water (if condensation occurs) per gallon of kerosene burned.
#13. To: wudidiz, randge (#6)
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible.
#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)
The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail.
#15. To: groundresonance (#14)
how do you tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails"?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#16. To: FormerLurker (#15)
#17. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge (#14)
What's the difference between a jet contrail and a chemtrail? Link to Source - "Your Life As A Human Test Subject"
According to the U.S. Air Force, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wake behind a boat.
Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare s tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a "fake cirrus-type cloud" that persists for hours.
In August 2000, chemtrail watchers began to report "more normal" appearing or nearly invisible jet sprays. However, these reports go on to include cloud formations dripping the feathers and mare s tails just as the chemtrails do. It s our belief that the operation has adjusted the chemtrail mix as word about the phenomenon is spreading and as more and more people are looking up. Observant chemtrail watchers continue to see the "fake cirrus-type clouds" on top of and surrounding real cumulus clouds.
#18. To: FormerLurker (#15)
criss-crossing each other's paths
#19. To: All (#17)
#20. To: Original_Intent (#17)
#21. To: Original_Intent (#19)
Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail
#22. To: groundresonance (#18)
here's a high altitude IFR enroute chart of federal airways.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#23. To: Original_Intent (#19)
#24. To: FormerLurker (#22)
(Edited)
You think I don't know the difference between normal air traffic and something that isn't normal?
#25. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#21)
(From "The Logical Fallacies entry on Loaded Words): Exposition:
A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When language is "loaded", it is loaded with its evaluative meaning. A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet.
Unloaded Loaded
Plant Weed
Animal Beast While few words have no evaluative overtones, "plant" is a primarily descriptive term. "Weed", in contrast, has essentially the same descriptive meaning as "plant", but a negative evaluative meaning, as well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.
Loaded language is not inherently fallacious, otherwise most poetry would commit this fallacy. However, it is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy "Question-Begging Epithets". ...
#26. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#23)
how many gallons of "chemtrail" substance, whatever that substance is supposed to be, would be required to leave a visible "chemtrail" a hundred miles long...?
#27. To: Original_Intent (#25)
BULLSHIT!
#28. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge, FormerLurker (#27)
#29. To: groundresonance, Original_Intent (#24)
are you a professional pilot operating aircraft at altitudes at which contrails can form?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#30. To: groundresonance (#24)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#31. To: FormerLurker (#29)
#32. To: Original_Intent (#28)
(Edited)
Photographs are evidence.
#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)
Perhaps to you this is normal air traffic...
#34. To: groundresonance (#24)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#35. To: FormerLurker (#30)
#36. To: groundresonance (#33)
perhaps you've never been in a holding pattern at altitude to conserve fuel before you commenced your approach.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#37. To: FormerLurker (#34)
#38. To: FormerLurker (#36)
Planes don't fly high enough in a holding pattern to leave contrails, for one.
#39. To: Original_Intent (#31)
Under no conditions do they form from the ailerons.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: groundresonance (#38)
are you a professional pilot?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#41. To: groundresonance (#32)
Photographs are evidence.
#42. To: groundresonance (#37)
rainbows are evidence that god was doing "chemtrails" thousands of years ago, huh?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#43. To: FormerLurker (#39)
Some people wouldn't believe it if you actually flew them close enough to the sprayer
#44. To: Original_Intent (#41)
.
.
.
