It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemtrail pushers/believers: you should be ashamed of yourselves

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: McChillin


Unless, of course, you tell me that qualified scientists, who agree with the chemtrail community aren't relevant to this discussion.

(Read in your best Seinfeld voice, of course)

Who are these scientists?




posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: McChillin

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: McChillin




. And, truth be told, i really don't feel like giving you the facts, proof, evidence or debating chemtrails because you aren't seeking truth.


And that would be why we are asking to see your proof, but since you don't want to provide that then you aren't really wanting to back your truth claims are you?



THEY say doesn't exist, as compared to not believing in something that does exist.


Well until someone can provide the proof they do exist...they don't?
I think, perhaps, you also should look at the other side of the coin. Who needs proof, when it's all in your face??? You can't be that far in denial, to deny the obvious, unless, you're literally blind.


Not proof but evidence. Since you want us to look up as evidence I have some questions.
1) What causes the contrails to persist and be the same color as nonpersistent contrails? Must be some chemical reaction that can be defined.
2) If the chemical additive is in the fuel why do we not see chemtrails on takeoff?
3) If not in the fuel where is the chemical stored? Like others said how are passenger jets storing this with the very limited space they have after people and cargo?
4) How many people have to be in on this and there are no real whistle-blowers? Think about the logistics on this there would have to be millions of people involved.
5) Weather manipulation or cloud seeding is done at lower altitudes in existing clouds, how does that relate to white lines in the sky above 30,000 feet?

Inquiring minds want to know...



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: McChillin




I think, perhaps, you also should look at the other side of the coin. Who needs proof, when it's all in your face???


I have which is why I ask for proof, and everyone would like proof or else it is just you saying they exist.



You can't be that far in denial, to deny the obvious, unless, you're literally blind.


Not blind as I can see, and what is there are not chemtrails.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: McChillin
Unless, of course, you tell me that qualified scientists, who agree with the chemtrail community aren't relevant to this discussion.


What qualified scientists with what data?



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Wow...you are so rabid to derail any thought process other than your own you completely missed the point...



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The post immediately proceeding yours implies there is significant amounts of evidence. I should think you would address that post rather than mine...



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

So what was the point?



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I shall attempt to put this as simply as possible: since I can not prove nor disprove the existence of chem-trails as part of intentional design I simply allow for the fact that they may exist. No one on this thread, or any other for that matter, has proven or disproven their existence. Circumstantial evidence is exactly that, and is generally not accepted as proof of anything. Similarly, lack of evidence is not proof of anything. If it were, there would be no point in looking for alien life, yet we continue to do so.

Aloysius: you claim to be an airline mechanic. I worked line service at a small airport for several years. Among other things, I refueled aircraft. I was trained to recognize all forms of av-gas by sight and scent, just like the rest of the line service crew. I know when I have jet fuel on my hands.

What came out of the sky that one day I referred to earlier was not jet fuel. I don't know what it was, but I know what it was not. Does that mean there is some nefarious deed taking place? Certainly not. But I would like to know what that substance was, and why it came out of an airplane flying over my neighborhood...



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I shall attempt to put this as simply as possible: since I can not prove nor disprove the existence of chem-trails as part of intentional design I simply allow for the fact that they may exist.



As do I - but he possibility isn't the fact, and so I examine the claims that the DO exist - most of which are very definite - and when I see that the evidence supporting the claim is nonsense I say so.


Aloysius: you claim to be an airline mechanic. I worked line service at a small airport for several years. Among other things, I refueled aircraft. I was trained to recognize all forms of av-gas by sight and scent, just like the rest of the line service crew. I know when I have jet fuel on my hands.


AvGas is not jet fuel......which makes me wonder about whether you really know what you say you do....


What came out of the sky that one day I referred to earlier was not jet fuel. I don't know what it was, but I know what it was not. Does that mean there is some nefarious deed taking place? Certainly not. But I would like to know what that substance was, and why it came out of an airplane flying over my neighborhood...


I am sure it was not jet fuel too - because jet fuel does not "come out of the sky" at all - even a fuel dump at low altitude will atomise before reaching the ground.

The fact hast you are linking an unknown substance directly to aircraft makes me think you are not quite telling the truth when you say "I don't know whether chemtrails exist or not..." - so often someone says that and then immediately says something like you have here "Except that I saw this thing...."



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: network dude

The post immediately proceeding yours implies there is significant amounts of evidence. I should think you would address that post rather than mine...



That post was one of three things. A flat out lie, an actual first ever PROOF that chemtrails are real, or.....he met a guy whose dad works with cloud seeding. If he brings something else to the table, I am sure everyone here will be super interested to see it. But I suspect #1 very strongly, and #3 on the off chance #1 is wrong.

But since you cannot post things on the internet that aren't true, I won't judge.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Chemtrail why do some say its real and they do it to block you seeing planet x or something like that but yet fail to realize the amount needed (parts per billion) in the air and fail to realize that every country every city needs to fly a 747 24/7 and even then would need to fly over the arctic over Ukraine and even places where there is no fly zone, don't forget holidays will start in summer so more Chemtrails



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
But I would like to know what that substance was, and why it came out of an airplane flying over my neighborhood...


So this airplane was very low altitude right? I mean, if it was at cruising altitude, then nothing it could have expelled would fall anywhere near you.

Perhaps the lavatory system was leaking?

eew.
edit on 2-1-2015 by network dude because: bad spelr



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: VroomfondelThey have no real answers. They give data and call it proof. The other side gives data, and they say that proof doesn't qualify. They give you government scientists' data, and say that's evidence. The other side gives you other scientific minds' data, and they say that evidence means nothing. The contrail conspiracy theorists are lopsided in their research; or should i say: one sided.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: McChillin




The other side gives data, and they say that proof doesn't qualify.


That is because their so called proof has been debunked at every turn, now when you can provide something that isn't easily debunked then you might have something, but as of this post it hasn't happened.



They give you government scientists' data, and say that's evidence.


Well what about meteorologists are they not credible, and they don't work for the government?







The contrail conspiracy theorists are lopsided in their research; or should i say: one sided.


Except contrails aren't a conspiracy theory, they are real.

Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory...learn the difference.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: McChillin




The other side gives data, and they say that proof doesn't qualify.


That is because their so called proof has been debunked at every turn, now when you can provide something that isn't easily debunked then you might have something, but as of this post it hasn't happened.



They give you government scientists' data, and say that's evidence.


Well what about meteorologists are they not credible, and they don't work for the government?







The contrail conspiracy theorists are lopsided in their research; or should i say: one sided.


Except contrails aren't a conspiracy theory, they are real.

Chemtrails are a conspiracy theory...learn the difference.
Ok then. So, it's the contrails that cause the weather to change; for the skies to go from blue to grey. Or, perhaps, you believe the crazy chemtrailers who think tptb are poisoning us. That's why you spend so much time trying to debunk them, right?

I'm not a chemtrailer, per say, but i do believe that the weather can be altered by spraying certain chemicals, which can either attract or repeal water. That's not a conspiracy. That's scientific facts! Trying to debunk that fact, should set off alarms, which says that you don't know what you're talking about.


Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment. This is achieved through either absorption or adsorption with the absorbing or adsorbing substance becoming physically changed somewhat. This could be by an increase in volume, boiling point, viscosity or other physical characteristic of the substance, as water molecules can become suspended between the substance's molecules in the process.


The hydrophobic effect is the observed tendency of nonpolar substances to aggregate in aqueous solution and exclude water molecules,[1][2] and they fall, specifically under the title rubric when a particular temperature dependence of the affinity of the apolar small molecule or moiety for the aqueous phase obtains.[citation needed] The part of the name, hydrophobic, literally meaning "water-fearing," and it describes the segregation and apparent repulsion between water and nonpolar substances.


Zinc chloride and calcium chloride, as well as potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide (and many different salts), are so hygroscopic that they readily dissolve in the water they absorb: this property is called deliquescence. Not only is sulfuric acid hygroscopic in concentrated form but its solutions are hygroscopic down to concentrations of 10 Vol-% or below. A hygroscopic material will tend to become damp and cakey when exposed to moist air (such as the salt inside salt shakers during humid weather).
Take it for what it's worth. Trying to debate FACTS, is a waste of your time.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
After you're done absorbing those facts, chew on this, and you'll start seeing the bigger picture.

Nanotechnology ("nanotech") is the manipulation of matter on an atomic, molecular, and supramolecular scale.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
There is actually a metric ton of proof that chemtrails don't exist. This data is collected constantly.. 24/7/365 in fact.. yet whenever I bring it up, it is summarily ignored. When once asked to produce the actual data as proof and I did, it was ignored.. and the only response I got was that the stuff being dropped was obviously something so foreign to us that we apparently couldn't detect it using million $ equipment. When I explained that was not possible, it was never responded to. Because those that believe in chemtrails don't want to hear the truth, because they simply can't debunk it.

So while yes, there have been attempts at weather modification on a smaller scale, and yes, there have been some tests and experiments for spraying, these are quite limited. There is no way massive amounts of anything is being sprayed over cities, towns, water supplies, etc. The proof is verifiable and available. It's just ignored.. because it's more fun to wildly wave your arms while screaming "omg conspiracy and coverup!" than to face the truth.

edit on 2-1-2015 by fleabit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: McChillin




but i do believe that the weather can be altered by spraying certain chemicals,


And yes they call it cloud seeding.

Thanks for the definitions now show where any of that proves chemntrails exist...because what you posted doesn't prove anything except you found definitions that in your mind backs your claims.



That's scientific facts! Trying to debunk that fact, should set off alarms, which says that you don't know what you're talking about.


Yes they are facts but what part of those facts show chemtrails are real. I see you may want to rethink your position about someone not knowing what they are talking about.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: McChillin




After you're done absorbing those facts, chew on this, and you'll start seeing the bigger picture.


I'm sorry but that is a definition and it has no bearing on chemtrails whatsoever.

But feel free to keep trying as this has all been discussed in the myriad of threads on chemtrails...I suggest you go through them so you quit rehashing information that has been shown to be false well before your posts.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabitWhat proof? Contrail pushers have no proof. In fact, to say you can prove chemtrails don't exist, is an insult to my intelligence. For a cloud to persistently linger, there has to be a chemical reaction happening and something which made that chemical reaction happen, otherwise, normal contrails would constantly persist and linger. Again, you can't have it both ways. And please, don't say anything about the temperature at 30,000 feet. It never gets above the freezing point, even during summer months.

Chemtrails are a form of nanotech. They're not spraying us like cockroaches. If that's what you think, i think they are.




top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join