Matthew Lewis

Just want to clarify something here does this refer to ground effect? If so, it was pointed out in another thread that ground effect decreases with speed. It also decreases as the angle of attack decreases (or vice versa) and the impact would have been at a negative angle of attack. Both of these mean that ground effect would have been negligible. What do you think about those facts?

How is that site misinformation?

Where does it say that? What I've seen is the quote that Dave Greer posted but that DOES NOT say the collapses too 11 and 9 seconds. It says the first panels struck the ground in that time. Is there another part where they claim the collapses took only 10 seconds? Even IF the official report did claim that, why do you take that as truth when you dismiss the rest of the official story? Especially when it is clearly and easily proven WRONG. ANYONE can look at any of the collapse videos and see debris falling outside the footprint of the towers which is falling in freefall far outpacing the rest of the collapse which means the collapse was NOT at freefall. There is also this site http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html Which does a good job showing that both collapse took longer than 10 seconds. So why persist in claiming the collapses took only 10 seconds?

A truther site that shows the towers took considerably LONGER than 10 seconds each to collapse http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

Since Jack apparently doesn't bother to answer direct questions, I have found his answer elsewhere I asked this I have previously on this forum backed up the above statement with science showing that the belief that contrails should dissipate quickly is indeed a lie. Jack said this on another forum So apparently Jack does indeed believe the lie. The following is research showing that it is indeed a lie. Proof that contrails have been know to be persistent given the right conditions (in other words, they don't always dissipate) since 1942 http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474.pdf An interesting post from another person on a completely unrelated forum that mentions proof from 1981 ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's) Older movies showing persistent contrails ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065670/goofs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066740/goofs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044413/goofs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057940/goofs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068421/goofs Newspaper articles describing spreading persistent contrails from the 40's 50's and 70's here ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's) http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/ Life magazine photos from the 40's and on showing persistent contrails ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's) http://contrailscience.com/life-magazine-contrail-photos/ Persistent contrails from 1940 http://contrailscience.com/fightercontrails-over-kent-1941/ Persistent contrails from 1967 http://contrailscience.com/thirty-contrails-forty-years-ago/ Pre WWII description of lingering contrails that turned to cirrus and showed rainbow colors (both things "chemtrail" believers say only happens with "chemtrails") http://contrailscience.com/pre-wwii-contrails/ 1991 photo of a pendulous contrail (or sawtooth as Jack called it in a previous post) with a short explanation of the cause http://consci.s3.amazonaws.com//wp-content/uploads/1991-day-p47-2.jpg Clouds before powered flight that look a lot like clouds "chemtrail" believers claim are man made http://contrailscience.com/clouds-before-planes-cloud-studies-1905/ Any comments on the above Jack? Do you still believe the proven lie that contrails do not persist? What about the lie that they were never seen before the late 90's? Why do some people think contrails never persisted before? http://contrailscience.com/people-dont-notice-contrails/ In the above referenced link Jack also said this Why then Jack do the vast majority of photos claiming to show "chemtrails" show them coming directly from the engines? Anything to say to any of this Jack? Or are you just going to continue using this thread as your personal blog?

Interesting article. It starts off with the lie that contrails should always dissipate after second or minutes. If this were always true then clouds could never exist. Do you believe this lie Jack? It spends a lot of time talking about cloud seeding but "chemtrails" is not that. Cloud seeding takes place within established clouds. "Chemtrails" can create clouds but not the type capable of producing rain. They can turn into cirrus clouds (not capable of rain)and often only do so when there are already other cirrus clouds present (aka conditions already conducive to contrail formation). I found it humorous how they took the STUDENT project 2025 (of which the "Owning the Weather" section is only a small part) which doesn't reflect policy and assume it is all happening or even possible. You should really look at the entire project sometime. All of it was a student project. A lot of it is not possible. More humorous though were the "images provided by a former meteorologist at the Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe." The guy behind those images used to post at a very lightly moderated (almost non-existent really) forum called godlikeproductions.com. Over the course of a few months he would post those "chemtrail" prediction maps. Then he collected the reports from other posters when they would see "chemtrails" exactly where he said they would be. The "problem" is all he posted were predictions of high level moisture or in other words, where contrails would be expected to form. He even admitted as such but the admissions were looked at as "they" got to him even though he continued to post his images afterward that believers continued to accept. Looks like his work is still attracting those willing to believe in anything. Edit to add: Where are the tests on samples collected from directly within a trail? They've been promised for more than 10 years now. Why avoid getting the single biggest piece of evidence that could possibly collect? Unless they know they won't find anything anyway?

While it looks interesting, are there any of the more than 500 listed there that Jack thinks are particularly "extremely important"? Or should we waste our time reading all just to find the one or two he should have linked to directly? Which ones do you find "extremely important" Jack? Isn't posting a link with little to no additional comment tantamount to spam?

Except NOBODY disputes that persistent contrails will turn into cirrus clouds. What you and others still have yet to prove is that theses trails are anything other than contrails. How did you know these were "chemplanes" and not normal commercial traffic? Did you compare their flight paths with an tracking program like Flight Aware or Flight Explorer? How do you know they were "chemtrails" when persistent contrails look exactly the same? Did you do ANYTHING besides rely on proven LIE that contrails must always dissipate? Do you deny that persistent contrails exist despite the 70+ years of science and observations supporting them?

Looks like a persistent contrail to me. Any proof it isn't?

If it looks more like cirrus, which, so do peristent contrails, then how do you know it was a "chemtrail"? What actual PROOF do you have aside from your previously proven wrong assertion that contrails do not persist? Jack, since you ignored this question before, here it is again. Jack, what do you think about the LIE that nearly all "chemtrail" websites push that contrails always disappear quickly? Further, what about the fabrication of evidence that many "chemtrail" supporters have done that I previously mentioned in post 66?

How do you know it wasn't a persistent contrail? Did you collect a sample directly from the trail and have it tested? No, of course you didn't. No "chemtrail" believer EVER has even though many have promised it for more than 10 years now. But still, how do you know it wasn't a persistent contrail? It is a simple question and one you still have not answered especially in light of the fact that persistent contrails look and behave exactly like "chemtrails".

Or just summertime, or has it never been hot in late June in Texas before? and I'll bet no persistent contrails either. Oh wait, they're the same thing. At least they look exactly the same, and they show up at the same times. Hardly surprising with the lack of persistent contrails or "chemtrails". For those of you who can't read the name of the poster at the beginning. This has been yet another installment of Jack White's daily weather report. We now return you to your regular forum.

You should know better than that Evan. You can't claim they "defy explanation" if you go and try to explain them!

Wind can do funny things to clouds. How do we know the clouds in the picture even came from a plane? Especially when "chemtrail" pushers have made up "evidence" in the past? How do we know one of them didn't just see some odd looking clouds and decided they could weave an emotional story around it? It wouldn't be the first time. I've seen pictures of fuel dumps claimed to be spraying activity, pictures of test aircraft with equipment used to vary center of gravity for flight tests with hazmat warnings photoshopped in, pictures of aircraft used to TAKE samples claiming the instruments are spraying equipment, deliberate mistranslations of the German word for chaff to say the German government admits to "chemtrails", photoshopped duplications of planes to make it appear that large airliners are flying in formation and more. If they have such a good case, why the need to fake their own evidence repeatedly? Jack, what do you think about the LIE that nearly all "chemtrail" websites push that contrails always disappear quickly?

No persistent contrails here today. Some scattered thunderstorms though. But it is summertime in FL, pretty much every day has scattered thunderstorms

Flashy site but short on actual evidence. One of the first things it does is perpetuates the LIE that normal contrails always disappear quickly (page 6, pdf numbering, not internal page numbering, of their free e-book and on captions of their various pictures). Further half-truths are claims that two "chemtrails" are being produced at the same altitude when they have NO WAY of determining altitude at all(one of the captions on one of their many pretty pictures). So how do they know? They don't. A further LIE; that these trails started in 1998 (page 6 of their book). Pictures and videos from before and during WWII, the 50's, 60's, and 70's or even the 80's in pictures taken from space by the space shuttle are easy to find with a cursory web search and prove that wrong. I have posted some on this site before. Another LIE;that the jets leaving these trails are unmarked (page 6). Again, provably wrong with simple web searches. Many plane spotters who take and collect pictures of jets from different airlines with different paint jobs use persistent contrails or "chemtrails" to help them locate the planes in the air. Another LIE; most jets are KC-10s (three engines) or KC-135s (4 engines) (page 8). Ok, maybe not a lie, maybe they just can't count. Most of the pictures I've seen that are supposed to depict "chemtrails" show planes with TWO engines. A misdirection; that the Air Force requested the KC-135 be modified with engines that reduce its noise output, implying that it is because they can then fly lower and attract less attention (page 8). A real researcher would note that ALL commercial and some military jets reduced their noise output at about the same time due to FAA regulations. They would find that the newest engines on the KC-135 were requested because they produce more power, use less fuel and burn cleaner, that the reduced noise is an added benefit that allowed the air force to come into compliance with FAA regs but not a specific request. The book mentions testing of samples but neglects to mention that ALL samples were collected on the ground. There is more but that is what was found with a quick skim. Most of the rest of the book reads very pretentiously. Says a lot without really saying anything. Reminds me of a politician. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay for the book. I may sit down and read the whole thing sometime instead of skimming but likely only if I have trouble sleeping. They in essence have a lot of pretty pictures (on the site) about which they make lots of claims with no actual evidence for any of the claims (like most "chemtrail" proponents). Pretty website though. Makes one wonder who's funding them? Why do they feel it necessary (like most other "chemtrail" proponents) to lie? My opinion is it is an exercise in gullibility. Present an emotional argument with little to no evidence and you'll still get plenty of people to believe it without actually looking into it. What does Jack think about their shoddy research? Apparently no one will ever know since he just posted the link with no comments of his own. Does he even HAVE an opinion?

No persistent contrails today, nor in Dothan, AL or points between.

No persistent contrails today.

Interesting but it assumes that something is actually being sprayed. Since "chemtrails" look the same as persistent contrails and no one has bothered to collect a sample directly from a trail, they don't have proof of ANY spraying. No persistent contrails over Panama City today. Then again, there are rarely ANY contrails overhead here as the vast majority of commercial aircraft are routed around this area due to the multiple military training airspaces near here. What an amazing coincidence that where there is no commercial traffic there are also no "chemtrails". You'd think if "chemtrails" were real they'd want to spray this area too.

How do you know it wasn't a CONTRAIL since they look and act the same? Don't feed the xxxxx! I do not bite on his bait. I do not even read it. It always says the same. He is only doing what he has to do. Now that sounds like another unfounded accusation of paid posting. As I have mentioned before, I am NOT paid to post here. I am NOT compensated in any way for my posting. My posts reflect my views and opinions. Are you going to withdraw your accusation or should I report it? I post what I do because of my own RESEARCH into contrails and the MYTH of "chemtrails". I have found NOTHING to convince me that "chemtrails" are anything but contrails. If you think you can prove otherwise then go ahead and do so. In the meantime, your continued silence to my and others valid questions makes you appear childish. What accusation? You have a compulsion to repeat the same message over and over....so you do what you have to do. Not a compulsion at all. Just repeating basic questions because you apparently miss them. In case you didn't realize it, this place is a DISCUSSION forum. You seem to be afraid of actual discussion. If you would ever like to discuss the subject, perhaps I wouldn't repeat the basic questions you seem afraid to answer. If you'd like to just post things where others can just admire what you wrote and not offer any coments of their own maybe you should get a blog.

How do you know it wasn't a CONTRAIL since they look and act the same? Don't feed the xxxxx! I do not bite on his bait. I do not even read it. It always says the same. He is only doing what he has to do. Now that sounds like another unfounded accusation of paid posting. As I have mentioned before, I am NOT paid to post here. I am NOT compensated in any way for my posting. My posts reflect my views and opinions. Are you going to withdraw your accusation or should I report it? I post what I do because of my own RESEARCH into contrails and the MYTH of "chemtrails". I have found NOTHING to convince me that "chemtrails" are anything but contrails. If you think you can prove otherwise then go ahead and do so. In the meantime, your continued silence to my and others valid questions makes you appear childish.

How do you know it wasn't a CONTRAIL since they look and act the same?

Or contrails, since they look exactly the same. Anyone ever take a sample directly from a trail yet to prove once and for all if it has chemicals in it? Its been promised by "chemtrail" proponents for nearly 10 years now with no results. Some even collected money to fund it then disappeared. I know if I saw that samples had been collected from within a trail, handled with a proper chain of custody and tested at various labs and they actually found something I would soon become one of their biggest supporters. But it never seems to be forthcoming. Maybe they did the collection and didn't like what they didn't find?

Whoop de freakin do. You didn't see your contrails that you have no proof of being anything but. What's your point?

Sounds normal for traffic that passes overhead and crosses. How do you KNOW they were "chemtrails" and not persistent contrails?