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.

 

TV Meteorologist shot. Chemtrail Believers Applaud it

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I see that ATS gives a full explanation what it's all about. I wasn't aware of any of that but it looks like this site has been the victim of a genuine conspiracy.

By contrast geoengineeringwatch gives no explanation and makes no promises. They just want you to give them money. No, I don't think these situations are remotely comparable.




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: MikeHawke

You're misinterpreting what Chadwickus is saying. He isn't saying that a chemtrail believer was responsible for the shooting; all he is saying is that some chemtrail believers are seizing upon this shooting to applaud the fact a weatherman was shot, because in their minds weathermen "suppress the truth about chemtrails".


I know, I didn't miss the point. my point is they don't speak for all of us.. for instance I believe in chemtrails and I do not agree with those statements therefore you cannot say lines like "chemtrail believers applaud it". because I am a control believer and I do not applaud.. understand what I'm trying to say? just these posts are trademarks signs of bigotry. Nothing more. it's like when I hear puls online that's a Christians believe "blah blah blah". you shouldn't say lines like that because they don't speak for everybody. opinion is never included in those poles similar to right now where my opinion is not included in what chemtrail believers think. therefore it's an empty statement. it's like saying all black people believePE title very clearly he needs to change I read the OP title very clearly, he needs to change it. or add the word "some"



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
personally I think anyone who doesn't believe in chemtrails is ignorant. ignorant to new knowledge ignorant in believing things because of cognitive dissonance or their unchecked bias.


link

In fact, wet deposition has long been hailed as a possible solution by higher powers, with their lofty pretensions to control the elements. China’s Meteorological Administration issued a paper last year which ambitiously declared all local officials would be able to use artificial rain to clear away smog by 2015. And as the Washington Post reported, the idea might not be so far from reality: because of chronic water shortages, China has invested heavily in artificial rain since the late 1950s. The country now boats a battery of 7,000 cloud-seeding artillery guns, the same number of launchers for chemical-bearing rockets, and more than 50 planes – all manned by an army of 50,000 employees, ready to launch full-scale warfare on the weather.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
after reading an article like this I always assume that they just stick their fingers in their ears and start rocking like a crazy person saying "it's not real, it's not real, it's not real, maybe there... but definitely not here"



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke


Trouble is you're talking about cloud seeding and weather manipulation, but calling it chemtrails. This is where you are the one making the epic fail. If you look at a contrail (chemtrail if you want) and don't understand why it is completely far removed from the technologies used in the manner of the article you posted, then you have already failed. Feeling smugly superior to others because you don't comprehend the argument is quite misplaced.

High altitude trails or clouds of water ice like cirrus or contrails simply do not contribute to rainfall. Never have, never can, never will. You need to get a grasp on why equating chemtrails with weather manipulation and rainfall is a ridiculous concept before pretending you are better than others.

Now if you want to talk about weather manipulation, GE, cloud seeding etc then fine. That is a solid and valid topic. If you think chemtrails is the same? Oops.

edit on 23-12-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)


(post by MikeHawke removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke

that's a simplistic comment and you might as well say the same about breathing - you breathe out chemicals in trails so chemtrails




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

does a truck come by and supply your lungs with artificial chemicals? not natural.. my god. I didnt know i needed to just break it down that bad. I was assuming I was taking to educated people.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MikeHawke
a reply to: waynos

I got a question for you. what did they use to make clouds seed? if the answer is any kind of chemical then your retarded. Chemical trails.. chemtrails..


You were given a succinct explanation of why the examples you chose were different than chemtrails and yet still came across as churlish and smug ....Remember, when calling people 'retarded', it is important not to appear so oneself. I think you meant "you're"?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke

Yeah, thanks for confirming my first reply to you. I actually didn't realise how accurately I'd got you, I thought you may have just made an error, but you meant it.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Thank You grammar police you're on top of the pronoun case. but I'll direct you to Google because they're talk to text doesn't decypher possessive pronoun usage. Thank you for being all over that apostrophe. obviously not to sidestep the topic or anything.. and we knows what do you think chemtrail believers believe. that planes fly around with barrels of strait poison just being showered on us? or maybe, just maybe that these carcinogens are in these clouds seeding applications? do you know what silver iodine is or better question is what it does? And..are you there mixing these chemicals that go into these planes? if you're not how do you even know that's what they use? you don't know anything that's my point. none of us do, this is all speculation.

link


Text
            Chronic Exposure/Target Organs:     Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)

           

Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Actby the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.

 

Obviously the cloud-after-cloud, year-after-year use of cloud seeding could lead to an insidious, cumulative effect. Especially when the same area is repeatedly seeded. If the toxicity manifests in pollution and illnesses, the effects may not be reversible. At this point, the PGCD monitoring of silver iodide toxicity is so small as to be nonexistent and flawed. C.E. Williams states, “water samples taken after rain from seeded clouds have revealed no silver iodide.”(11) This is misleading.

 

According to the PGCD, “Every year, two viable samples of rainwater must be sent to a laboratory for analysis and in return forwarded to TNRCC to ensure that the water is not contaminating the area.”(4) This is faulty sampling and testing over a seven county area. If PGCD can not control where the seeded clouds dumps water, how can they take only two rain samples per year to test for silver concentrates of the clouds they seeded? At least it is an admission that silver toxicity is an issue. Such misleading statements based on faulty data are not uncommon to the PGCD. In 2001, rainfall amounts were grossly overinflated in multiple rain gauges.(2,11) Such overstatements are to prop up the benefits of their program while denying the adverse effects.




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MikeHawke
a reply to: waynos

I got a question for you. what did they use to make clouds seed? if the answer is any kind of chemical then your retarded. Chemical trails.. chemtrails..


Oh, and cloud seeding chemicals have never been found in contrails and are not produced by jet combustion and cloud seeding does not leave trails at all. So you'd be pretty hard pressed to be any more wrong.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MikeHawke
a reply to: waynos

Thank You grammar police you're on top of the pronoun case. but I'll direct you to Google because they're talk to text doesn't decypher possessive pronoun usage. Thank you for being all over that apostrophe. obviously not to sidestep the topic or anything.. and we knows what do you think chemtrail believers believe. that planes fly around with barrels of strait poison just being showered on us? or maybe, just maybe that these carcinogens are in these clouds seeding applications? do you know what silver iodine is or better question is what it does? And..are you there mixing these chemicals that go into these planes? if you're not how do you even know that's what they use? you don't know anything that's my point. none of us do, this is all speculation.

link


Text
            Chronic Exposure/Target Organs:     Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)

           

Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Actby the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.

 

Obviously the cloud-after-cloud, year-after-year use of cloud seeding could lead to an insidious, cumulative effect. Especially when the same area is repeatedly seeded. If the toxicity manifests in pollution and illnesses, the effects may not be reversible. At this point, the PGCD monitoring of silver iodide toxicity is so small as to be nonexistent and flawed. C.E. Williams states, “water samples taken after rain from seeded clouds have revealed no silver iodide.”(11) This is misleading.

 

According to the PGCD, “Every year, two viable samples of rainwater must be sent to a laboratory for analysis and in return forwarded to TNRCC to ensure that the water is not contaminating the area.”(4) This is faulty sampling and testing over a seven county area. If PGCD can not control where the seeded clouds dumps water, how can they take only two rain samples per year to test for silver concentrates of the clouds they seeded? At least it is an admission that silver toxicity is an issue. Such misleading statements based on faulty data are not uncommon to the PGCD. In 2001, rainfall amounts were grossly overinflated in multiple rain gauges.(2,11) Such overstatements are to prop up the benefits of their program while denying the adverse effects.



Please point out where I made any mention of your grammar?

Secondly, I refer you to my previous post. I await your evidence that shows my statement there was wrong.

There are no rainclouds to seed at 30,000ft. Cloud seeding is not visible from the ground and conducted at lower altitudes where cumulous clouds are. You are talking nonsense.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke

Well, you should have quit while you were behind, but since you didn't.....

How cloud seeding works.
(silver IODIDE, not iodine)

See, contrails form at 25 to 35 thousand feet. Cloud seeding is done at much lower altitudes.

Contrails can be seen from the ground. Can cloud seeding? (answer, no)

Chemtrails= a clandestine operation to spray (unknown chemicals) on the populace for (unknown reasons) and is still beleived by some even after a report on a contrail ice budget was written.

Now, believing in chemtrails is OK, as long as you stay as far away from actual science as you can get.

Believing that cloud seeding has anything to do with chemtrails is no OK. Its ignorance on display.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
For such a wide reaching operation you think there would be more/some/any solid evidence out there.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

you won't stop attacking you little tiny battles I said iodine inmy above paragraph because of talk to text but if you actually looked at the link that I gave out you it does say iodide like I meant I'm so so sorry about the grammar.. again. I work for the engineering department of a hospitaland drive around my company truck while talking to you. I'm sorry I can't sit there like I'm at a computer and go over everything that I say find every little error so you don't attack them.

Waynos because you tried to correct me on they're. that is a grammar correction. just cuz you didn't say grammar out loud did not mean you are not talking about grammar and punctuation.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke

when did I do this? Which post did I do it in? I think you'll find, just like chemtrails, you're talking about something you think you know, but you're wrong.

edit on 23-12-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeHawke

How do artillery guns make long white trails across the sky?

How come people have filmed high altitude jets making the trails, when you're trying to tell us it's artillery guns?

Have you ever seen rain come from these trails?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Thank you for your articulate and reasoned response, I think you just exemplified how these debates should go. I may lean heavy on the conspiracy side of things, but I learn just as much from the other side.





posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I was being sarcastic. I didn't see the other site so I don't know what they are about but it seems that asking for donations to keep your web site up and running is the same thing no matter what site it is.

a reply to: waynos




top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join